Anonymous wrote:I didn't go to my brother's second wedding because my kids weren't invited. I live out of state and all family was going to the wedding. By not inviting my kids it meant I couldn't go. I didn't want to anyway, so it was an easy decision. I didn't want to go because my family is clueless and abusive, and this was just another example of their cluelessness.

Anonymous wrote:Np. We invited kids and I think kids make a wedding. It’s also a chance to teach kids how to behave at such events.

I think the no kids trend started as a way to cut numbers / costs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s an outgrowth of kids being poorly behaved. There is no longer any expectation of reasonable behavior - thx “gentle parenting”

Exactly!

Attended a wedding a year ago. They requested no kids under 16. They also requested "no electronics during the ceremony". There were 2 kids under 5 who attended, were so-so behaved and to accomplish that required iPads/iPhones the entire time. The bride was not happy they were there, the kids were bored out of their minds and not super well behaved. And this bride is a very reasonable person---just decided the venue and event was not for kids.
So that is wrong---you either hire a sitter or you don't attend. It's your choice, but as a grown ass adult, you should know to follow the rules. And this was not a close relative (I'm a close relative)

A bride who tells her guests "no electronics during the ceremony" is not a reasonable person. Why on earth does she care if Uncle Jim is scrolling through his emails in the last row? Isn't she focused on, you know, saying her vows?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is often driven my venue rules around alcohol, as well. Our venue had a rule that, if we wanted wine served with dinner, if there was even one guest under 21 then we had to pay 2k for additional servers to pour wine with dinner. If everyone was over 21 then they'd just put bottles on the table for guests to serve serve.

My sisters were under 21 and of course they needed to be included so we opted not to have wine service and keep the bar open so people had to go get their own drinks, but it wasn't ideal.

Sure.

But I planned my guest list FIRST and then found my venue. The PEOPLE coming to the wedding were more important than any other factor. So then I also set my budget around that too. So yes, weddings are expensive, alcohol rules exist. But they are hardly a very good reason for not inviting your 12 year old niece or nephew and then being SO SHOCKED your sister is mad about it.

The guests do not dictate the venue. You are out of your freaking mind.

NP. Perhaps you misunderstood what she said. I did the same thing. We sat down and made a list of all the people we wanted to invite and our budget. No A/B list or things like that, kids included. We got our number and searched for venues that could accommodate that number within our budget. I experienced being on a B list twice before; I didn't like it and I didn't want to make anyone else feel that way. I also wanted all of my special people there, so if that meant their kids, then so be it. But I also believe that weddings are about 2 families in addition to 2 people and I like kids. I know it sounds holier than thou, but it was my honest thought that people were more important than decorations, flowers, cakes, videographers, bands, dresses, limos and centerpieces. We had a church wedding and a reception at a mid to high rated hotel of a well-known chain in a fun location. People still tell me how much they had at our wedding and loved that everyone was invited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are South Asian and of course had kids at our wedding. But my cousin's kid wailed throughout my ceremony and my cousin didn't have the sense to take the kid outside of the hall. Years later, that same cousin's other kid almost ruined a couple's first dance bc the parents couldn't be bothered to keep their kid away from the dance floor for a few minutes.

This is to say, I understand why people exclude kids from weddings. It's not about the kids, it's about the entitled/clueless parents of said kids that don't remove their kid or correct their behavior.

See, a lot of people would find it really cute that a kid occupies the dance floor during the first dance. If I were the bride, I would love it and cherish those pics. Sadly, no kid came up to us during the dance, but I do have hilarious pics of kid shenanigans during other parts of my wedding - they're the best! I'm French, had my wedding in a castle in France, and all the kids were running around, petting the horses of the horse-drawn carriage (under supervision), running into the garden or the fields... it was carefree and exactly what I thought should happen.

The root of the problem is a fundamental difference in how certain adults view the presence of children, who naturally understand the world differently from adults. Childhood is so short and precious. Most of the world understands that this is a time to be understanding of their needs, not try to straight-jacket them into unnecessary decorum. The decorum gets learned every day. My kids are now young adults and teens. They and their cousins have absorbed all the required mannerisms to be courteous adults. They are none of the worse for being invited to weddings and being allowed to express themselves.

This isn’t cute. At all. Why would you think its cure for kids to upstage the couple for the first dance? The kids can slide on their knees the next 30 songs.

and herein lies the delusion. You’re not famous - nobody wants to see your first dance as if you were on Broadway. There is no “upstaging” unless you are impossibly self-centered.

But they don't want to see your kids either. The bride and groom paid for the party. It's their party. Your kids are tolerated at best. If you want your kid on the stage performing, send them to dance class where there is a recital.

why would you invite people you’re so hostile towards? Seriously. why make such a big deal if it’s just “a party”?

I think there are some reasonable points here made about worsening discipline, the expense of hosting your mom’s coworker’s kids, etc. But some people don’t quite seem to get that the reason people make an effort and sometimes go to great cost to attend weddings is because they are more than just “a party.”

Why would you go to a wedding if you begrudge the couple their first dance? How self centered are you?

i don’t begrudge them the first dance but I do think this idea that they are broadway stars everyone is rapt to see is a bit cringe. No matter how well they dance it’s always a bit cringe and everyone is relieved when it ends.

But if your 4 year old was out there with them it would be 10000% better?

It's their wedding, whatever they want to do for the first dance is their choice. Your job is not to critique it all. You can choose when you get married.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think not inviting close relatives of any age is a dumb idea. Family is family, not matter the age and a wedding (to me) is an important family event. I can understand not inviting all the kids of your current friends or less close relations, because not all weddings are for kids.

But some people get so blinded by "NO KIDS" they alienate their sister for life over a 12 year old's attendance. It's silly.

And some people are so entitled that they cannot follow rules. If my own siblings or my spouses siblings want a wedding with only 12+ and they choose not to make an exception for my under 12 kids, I simply either choose to not attend or chose to attend and let my kids have a fun time at home with friends or a baby sitter. It's their wedding so they get to pick who attends, and if they prefer an adult reception, so be it.

If your sibling is alienated by that, then perhaps you are better off not having them around.

We just wouldn't go. I'm not spending a fortune on a babysitter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is often driven my venue rules around alcohol, as well. Our venue had a rule that, if we wanted wine served with dinner, if there was even one guest under 21 then we had to pay 2k for additional servers to pour wine with dinner. If everyone was over 21 then they'd just put bottles on the table for guests to serve serve.

My sisters were under 21 and of course they needed to be included so we opted not to have wine service and keep the bar open so people had to go get their own drinks, but it wasn't ideal.

Sure.

But I planned my guest list FIRST and then found my venue. The PEOPLE coming to the wedding were more important than any other factor. So then I also set my budget around that too. So yes, weddings are expensive, alcohol rules exist. But they are hardly a very good reason for not inviting your 12 year old niece or nephew and then being SO SHOCKED your sister is mad about it.

The guests do not dictate the venue. You are out of your freaking mind.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are South Asian and of course had kids at our wedding. But my cousin's kid wailed throughout my ceremony and my cousin didn't have the sense to take the kid outside of the hall. Years later, that same cousin's other kid almost ruined a couple's first dance bc the parents couldn't be bothered to keep their kid away from the dance floor for a few minutes.

This is to say, I understand why people exclude kids from weddings. It's not about the kids, it's about the entitled/clueless parents of said kids that don't remove their kid or correct their behavior.

See, a lot of people would find it really cute that a kid occupies the dance floor during the first dance. If I were the bride, I would love it and cherish those pics. Sadly, no kid came up to us during the dance, but I do have hilarious pics of kid shenanigans during other parts of my wedding - they're the best! I'm French, had my wedding in a castle in France, and all the kids were running around, petting the horses of the horse-drawn carriage (under supervision), running into the garden or the fields... it was carefree and exactly what I thought should happen.

The root of the problem is a fundamental difference in how certain adults view the presence of children, who naturally understand the world differently from adults. Childhood is so short and precious. Most of the world understands that this is a time to be understanding of their needs, not try to straight-jacket them into unnecessary decorum. The decorum gets learned every day. My kids are now young adults and teens. They and their cousins have absorbed all the required mannerisms to be courteous adults. They are none of the worse for being invited to weddings and being allowed to express themselves.

This isn’t cute. At all. Why would you think its cure for kids to upstage the couple for the first dance? The kids can slide on their knees the next 30 songs.

and herein lies the delusion. You’re not famous - nobody wants to see your first dance as if you were on Broadway. There is no “upstaging” unless you are impossibly self-centered.

NP. So your kids are soooooooo adorable and unique that they deserve a spotlight 24/7 at any place and time, to the point where they should dance with a bride and groom? And YOU want to talk about "self-centered"?

The delusion is believing that there is a Spotlight on anyone …

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are South Asian and of course had kids at our wedding. But my cousin's kid wailed throughout my ceremony and my cousin didn't have the sense to take the kid outside of the hall. Years later, that same cousin's other kid almost ruined a couple's first dance bc the parents couldn't be bothered to keep their kid away from the dance floor for a few minutes.

This is to say, I understand why people exclude kids from weddings. It's not about the kids, it's about the entitled/clueless parents of said kids that don't remove their kid or correct their behavior.

See, a lot of people would find it really cute that a kid occupies the dance floor during the first dance. If I were the bride, I would love it and cherish those pics. Sadly, no kid came up to us during the dance, but I do have hilarious pics of kid shenanigans during other parts of my wedding - they're the best! I'm French, had my wedding in a castle in France, and all the kids were running around, petting the horses of the horse-drawn carriage (under supervision), running into the garden or the fields... it was carefree and exactly what I thought should happen.

The root of the problem is a fundamental difference in how certain adults view the presence of children, who naturally understand the world differently from adults. Childhood is so short and precious. Most of the world understands that this is a time to be understanding of their needs, not try to straight-jacket them into unnecessary decorum. The decorum gets learned every day. My kids are now young adults and teens. They and their cousins have absorbed all the required mannerisms to be courteous adults. They are none of the worse for being invited to weddings and being allowed to express themselves.

This isn’t cute. At all. Why would you think its cure for kids to upstage the couple for the first dance? The kids can slide on their knees the next 30 songs.

and herein lies the delusion. You’re not famous - nobody wants to see your first dance as if you were on Broadway. There is no “upstaging” unless you are impossibly self-centered.

But they don't want to see your kids either. The bride and groom paid for the party. It's their party. Your kids are tolerated at best. If you want your kid on the stage performing, send them to dance class where there is a recital.

why would you invite people you’re so hostile towards? Seriously. why make such a big deal if it’s just “a party”?

I think there are some reasonable points here made about worsening discipline, the expense of hosting your mom’s coworker’s kids, etc. But some people don’t quite seem to get that the reason people make an effort and sometimes go to great cost to attend weddings is because they are more than just “a party.”

Why would you go to a wedding if you begrudge the couple their first dance? How self centered are you?

i don’t begrudge them the first dance but I do think this idea that they are broadway stars everyone is rapt to see is a bit cringe. No matter how well they dance it’s always a bit cringe and everyone is relieved when it ends.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We are South Asian and of course had kids at our wedding. But my cousin's kid wailed throughout my ceremony and my cousin didn't have the sense to take the kid outside of the hall. Years later, that same cousin's other kid almost ruined a couple's first dance bc the parents couldn't be bothered to keep their kid away from the dance floor for a few minutes.

This is to say, I understand why people exclude kids from weddings. It's not about the kids, it's about the entitled/clueless parents of said kids that don't remove their kid or correct their behavior.

See, a lot of people would find it really cute that a kid occupies the dance floor during the first dance. If I were the bride, I would love it and cherish those pics. Sadly, no kid came up to us during the dance, but I do have hilarious pics of kid shenanigans during other parts of my wedding - they're the best! I'm French, had my wedding in a castle in France, and all the kids were running around, petting the horses of the horse-drawn carriage (under supervision), running into the garden or the fields... it was carefree and exactly what I thought should happen.

The root of the problem is a fundamental difference in how certain adults view the presence of children, who naturally understand the world differently from adults. Childhood is so short and precious. Most of the world understands that this is a time to be understanding of their needs, not try to straight-jacket them into unnecessary decorum. The decorum gets learned every day. My kids are now young adults and teens. They and their cousins have absorbed all the required mannerisms to be courteous adults. They are none of the worse for being invited to weddings and being allowed to express themselves.

This isn’t cute. At all. Why would you think its cure for kids to upstage the couple for the first dance? The kids can slide on their knees the next 30 songs.

and herein lies the delusion. You’re not famous - nobody wants to see your first dance as if you were on Broadway. There is no “upstaging” unless you are impossibly self-centered.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think in situations where a guest’s presence is, more or less, demanded/expected (usually close family)- the wedding couple/host should take those guests’ children into consideration. Mostly relevant to those who are traveling out of town. The kids should either be invited to the wedding or should be provided significant help with arranging local childcare ahead of time. But again- this really applies only to close family- so a small number of guests.

Yes I’d be upset if one of our siblings planned an out of town wedding, which we would be obligated to attend, and then did not want kids present at any wedding events & also provided no help with arrangements for the kids. Fortunately this has not happened.

For friends, distant family, colleagues etc? No kids is fine, and we would never expect our kids to be invited (even if other kids are there- ones who are close with the bride and groom). We would either get a sitter & enjoy a nice night out without the kids, only one of us would attend (whoever’s friend/relative it is), or we’d send our regrets/best wishes with a nice gift.

I think it’s very good to be considerate, but does not need to extend to an invitation necessarily. For each of my cousins weddings, their mom (my aunt) gave my siblings and I, all of whom have little kids, an extra couple months’ notice to book accommodations and make our plans, and she offered assistance in confirming babysitting for the night of. This gave us a little extra time to make the logistics work and I found a good sized Airbnb that would accommodate my and my siblings children, very close to the venue. The extra notice helped me find an Airbnb with all my preferred characteristics, like cribs, free cancellation, fenced in, etc. We then found two babysitters who could come to the Airbnb and watch all the children. I thought this was thoughtful and led to a great outcome for everyone involved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think not inviting close relatives of any age is a dumb idea. Family is family, not matter the age and a wedding (to me) is an important family event. I can understand not inviting all the kids of your current friends or less close relations, because not all weddings are for kids.

But some people get so blinded by "NO KIDS" they alienate their sister for life over a 12 year old's attendance. It's silly.

It's a pity that the sister in the OP's example chooses to let one event ruin her relationship with her brother and his family, all because she wanted to be an exception to what every other guest was asked to do. But she had to be Very Special!

The sister is the one choosing to feel alienated here.

I don't agree. I think it would have been a small accommodation that would have meant a lot to the groom's sister. Yes the sister *should* get over it and move on. But I don't think she's wrong to feel miffed.

I agree in this scenario the SIL has a right to be pissed the niece is not invited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think not inviting close relatives of any age is a dumb idea. Family is family, not matter the age and a wedding (to me) is an important family event. I can understand not inviting all the kids of your current friends or less close relations, because not all weddings are for kids.

But some people get so blinded by "NO KIDS" they alienate their sister for life over a 12 year old's attendance. It's silly.

It's a pity that the sister in the OP's example chooses to let one event ruin her relationship with her brother and his family, all because she wanted to be an exception to what every other guest was asked to do. But she had to be Very Special!

The sister is the one choosing to feel alienated here.

I don't agree. I think it would have been a small accommodation that would have meant a lot to the groom's sister. Yes the sister *should* get over it and move on. But I don't think she's wrong to feel miffed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think is often driven my venue rules around alcohol, as well. Our venue had a rule that, if we wanted wine served with dinner, if there was even one guest under 21 then we had to pay 2k for additional servers to pour wine with dinner. If everyone was over 21 then they'd just put bottles on the table for guests to serve serve.

My sisters were under 21 and of course they needed to be included so we opted not to have wine service and keep the bar open so people had to go get their own drinks, but it wasn't ideal.

Sure.

But I planned my guest list FIRST and then found my venue. The PEOPLE coming to the wedding were more important than any other factor. So then I also set my budget around that too. So yes, weddings are expensive, alcohol rules exist. But they are hardly a very good reason for not inviting your 12 year old niece or nephew and then being SO SHOCKED your sister is mad about it.

Anonymous wrote:Some of you people really do need to read or listen to the audiobook of "Let Them" by Mel Robbins, and it shows.