Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
So you'd prefer that the invitation say "Jane and Sarah can bring their kids, but Kim and Debbie can not." Would that be clearer for you?
Err no. You'd address the invite Sarah, Jane, Larla and Larlo for one family and Kim and Debbie to the other family. No need to say who isn't invited, only who is.
I think you're being purposely obtuse now though.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
At first I was surprised that you had not encountered this situation before, since it is quite common, as many others have stated. But not anymore. I now understand why you have not been invited to many weddings, and lack the experience.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
Hmm, I wonder which option is easier if you're busy planning a wedding... (A) say no kids and then let the three friends whose kids can come know separately or (B) don't say anything about kids and field dozens of questions as to whether people can bring their kids (or worse, have them not ask and then just bring their kids!).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
So you'd prefer that the invitation say "Jane and Sarah can bring their kids, but Kim and Debbie can not." Would that be clearer for you?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
Many people, have a flower girl or two and a ring bearer. In a situation like this would you provide a baby sitter? Let the parents and kids know that the kids won’t be welcome at the reception? How would you — handle it?
Me personally? I had an 18+ wedding with no children in the wedding.
If I had a flower girl or ring bearer who were invited to the reception, I would not specify 18+/adults only/no kids. Because that wouldn't be factual. I would just invite the people who I wanted to invite, and list their names. Ie John and Jane. If they asked if they could bring their kids (several people still did) I just said "sorry, we cant accommodate them, the invitation is just for you and John."
I dont mind the idea of providing a baby sitter, but many parents still wouldn't feel comfortable leaving their kids with a rando, so YMMV with that alternative.
Anonymous wrote:Ugh, my cousins married 10 years ago and designated it "no kids." We flew across the country to attend but then my dh had to babysit in the hotel room while I visited with my family at the wedding. I was miffed because we made a big effort to be there, and yet couldn't bring our two kids.
Now they are the parents of two young boys, and I HIGHLY DOUBT they would appreciate someone telling them not to bring those kids to a wedding.
I hate no-kid weddings.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
They just don't want your kids. Get over it. Also parties that say 'no siblings' will also have siblings. Everyone knows how this works because if you don't spell it out people will show up with 6 extra uninvited guests. There will be some kids and some siblings, by design, they just don't want all the others there. Unless you just fell off a turnip truck you know this.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Please re-read what I wrote, I never said if you invite some kids you have to invite all. I said it's improper to write "no kids" or "adults only" when there will, in fact, be kids attending. That's it! Invite who you want, just don't lie on your invitations.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
It's their party and they can do what they want to.
It's improper etiquette and poor hosting.
But sure, they can also charge people a cover fee. It's their party. Doesnt not make it tacky and rude.
This is not strictly true -- there is no specific etiquette rule that says if you invite some children to a wedding, you must allow all guests to bring their kids.
We only invited the kids of our immediate family because, for space reasons, this allowed us to invite more friends and also to ensure anyone who wanted to bring a date could (not just people who were married or in longterm relationships). Would it have been more polite invite the kids of our friends who had them, but then not invite 15 more friends we really did want to be there? Or tell our unmarried friends they aren't allowed to bring a date? Sometimes you have to make choices.
Charging a cover or making people pay for their drinks is a totally different matter. That's bad hosting because if you invite someone to a wedding, you should be providing them with food and drink. But not inviting every single child of every single guest is not automatically rude unless you are weirdly targeted about it (which most people are not -- in OP's case, it was only the children of the wedding party who were invited, which makes sense because they have more wedding obligations and also those kids are more likely to be known to, and important to, the bride and groom).
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I know this is an old thread... but I really hate when people say no kids and then still invite kids.
If an event is truly 18+ or 21+ that is totally fine! Say that! But dont say "no kids" and then invite other peoples kids. Just invite the adults.
I had an 18+ wedding. No kids were invited, no kids attended.
Many people, have a flower girl or two and a ring bearer. In a situation like this would you provide a baby sitter? Let the parents and kids know that the kids won’t be welcome at the reception? How would you — handle it?