Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

Ew creepy.

+1

Anonymous wrote:Who was listed on invitation? If your kids were not, then they weren't invited.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

NP. There’s no need to “clear up” when the people who are invited have their names clearly printed on the invitation. That’s how wedding invitations work. By “clearing up,” you mean to say you want to see if you can hint/manipulate/whine your way into what you want.

I really believe you mean this, and I also believe you must have extremely toxic relationships if this is your interpretation of how this conversation would go. Most people who love each other can have this conversation without it being whining, manipulating, or even hinting your way into getting someone to change their mind. I know you won't be able to stop yourself from posting some nasty response to this, and I want you to know that you deserve love too and I hope you are working with someone who can help teach you to trust people and not to immediately burn down every relationship and every situation out of some fear of being vulnerable.

Awwwwwww, yeahhhhh, like this “concern” isn’t just more proof that you are, indeed, the pushy and manipulative type. Bye!

Everyone is out to get you and the only way to stay strong is to avoid having real human interactions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

NP. There’s no need to “clear up” when the people who are invited have their names clearly printed on the invitation. That’s how wedding invitations work. By “clearing up,” you mean to say you want to see if you can hint/manipulate/whine your way into what you want.

I really believe you mean this, and I also believe you must have extremely toxic relationships if this is your interpretation of how this conversation would go. Most people who love each other can have this conversation without it being whining, manipulating, or even hinting your way into getting someone to change their mind. I know you won't be able to stop yourself from posting some nasty response to this, and I want you to know that you deserve love too and I hope you are working with someone who can help teach you to trust people and not to immediately burn down every relationship and every situation out of some fear of being vulnerable.

Awwwwwww, yeahhhhh, like this “concern” isn’t just more proof that you are, indeed, the pushy and manipulative type. Bye!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

NP. There’s no need to “clear up” when the people who are invited have their names clearly printed on the invitation. That’s how wedding invitations work. By “clearing up,” you mean to say you want to see if you can hint/manipulate/whine your way into what you want.

I really believe you mean this, and I also believe you must have extremely toxic relationships if this is your interpretation of how this conversation would go. Most people who love each other can have this conversation without it being whining, manipulating, or even hinting your way into getting someone to change their mind. I know you won't be able to stop yourself from posting some nasty response to this, and I want you to know that you deserve love too and I hope you are working with someone who can help teach you to trust people and not to immediately burn down every relationship and every situation out of some fear of being vulnerable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

I don’t either, because every child-free wedding I’ve been to, the couple has been extremely uptight and not pleasant to be around. The last child-free wedding I went to, they demanded cash only instead of gifts, then spent the next decade complaining about everyone who didn’t comply. Also lots of complaints about what people wore.

I prefer to be around happy, fun, joyful people. If that means I miss out on some lame weddings, so be it. I don’t think either of us are that distraught over it.

Anonymous wrote:OP here -- whoever said that OP slept in late after posting at 3 am -- that's exactly what happened.

Grateful for all the responses -- even the snarky ones. Of course this was going to get some heated replies, just did not understand how heated.

For context, yes, we are a large family and most cousins have been really close. Our lovely niece is the eldest, and closer in age to us than the kids. I clearly understand the need to manage a large guest list. We watched her small backyard ceremony last year over zoom, and this is just the party she could not have during covid. Unfortunately, as many have pointed out, covid is still around us.

The invitations were sent online, both because less paper means less covid tracking, and because this is a big party for the wedding that had no guests last year. Kids were in fact named in the invitation, which is why we had assumed we were all going.

My spouse reached out to his sister for clarifications and it turns out that indeed, our kids (her youngest cousins) are invited. We will confirm with the bride, to make sure.

This now turns into our internal decision whether it's safe to go. All in my family are rearing to go. I'm concerned about stirring the covid pot, even though we are all vaccinated. Eastern WA where this is has low (<50%) vaccination rates and high COVID incidence. Wedding does require vaccination. but still. A lot of pressure to go, but I may still have to opt out. This covid resurgence really sucks.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would skip the wedding on principal. I get that the couple has the “right” to ban kids … but then I also have the right not to go.

The members of the family that are this child-obsessed are usually awkward enough (think cartoonish baby-talking preschool teacher) that they aren't exactly missed anyway.

+1. We all know the type who lose their identity and have nothing to say beyond asking about kids. So dull.

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

NP. There’s no need to “clear up” when the people who are invited have their names clearly printed on the invitation. That’s how wedding invitations work. By “clearing up,” you mean to say you want to see if you can hint/manipulate/whine your way into what you want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I see no children as nobody under 12. If the brewery was actually the issue she should've said no minors. But children is a specific word usually used to refer to the 12 and under set. So I understand OP's uncertainty.

Adults only would be only people over 18. She should've used this if that was her prerogative. I wonder if people who had toddlers received different invitations with the wording on it? Not everyone will look online. Really comes down to what the formal invite said on the envelope. I would decline now due to not previously understanding kids can't come.

There’s no “uncertainty” if the children’s names weren’t specifically on the outer envelope or the inner envelope. There’s no “confusion.” There’s no “interpretation” to make.

WELL OBVIOUSLY THERE IS OR WE WOULDN"T HAVE THIS 150 PAGE THREAD WOULD WE NANCY

Oh honey. It’s OK that you are entirely uncultured and lack basic knowledge of etiquette. Do you know how to Google? If so, you can help yourself to basic information on wedding invitations and etiquette.

Did you read OP's update? Perhaps you should send a note to the bride and groom and let them know that in fact you already decided OP's kids are not invited and so her clarification that they are is a mistake, GOOD DAY. I SAID GOOD DAY.

Except that they pretty clearly originally weren't, really. Sorry you're getting so upset over the thread though, it's not healthy.

Upset! Surely you joke. I just am baffled by DCUM's overreaction to so many things that are easily cleared up with a phone call or a text. I am not upset in the least. Mostly just sad for all the things people are missing out on because they've decided to go nuclear over nothing, when they could have just, like, called their sibling to find out the situation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t attend child free weddings - love, love, love seeing kids on the dance floor.

Ew creepy.