children in wedding

Knottie1435064983

I have a lot of kids in my family, which is great, and I don't really mind incorporating them in my wedding, any ideas beside flower girl and ring bearer, for children to do going down the aisle, or little things they can do to feel important? ages 3-10

AddieCake

Don't try to include everyone. Trying to come up with roles is proof not everyone needs to be or can be included.

Jen4948

Knottie1435064983 said:

I have a lot of kids in my family, which is great, and I don't really mind incorporating them in my wedding, any ideas beside flower girl and ring bearer, for children to do going down the aisle, or little things they can do to feel important? ages 3-10

No. Flower girl and ring bearer are the only "roles" available to children in wedding parties. The only other "role" for children at weddings is guest, which in and of itself is important.

Also, as much as you love all these kids, a valuable lesson for kids to learn is that they are not always entitled to be the stars of the show or even supporting actors. Weddings are among such times when that's the case. If you visit with them for a few minutes at the reception and let them know how much it means to you that they are there, that should make them feel "important."

Viczaesar

"Guest."

MairePoppy

I agree with Jen4948 that kids should not expect to be included in the wedding party. These are the roles for children - flower child and ring bearer. Otherwise, get the children together for a group photo and maybe a special dance. 

CMGragain

My daughter did the Hokey Pokey with the kids at her wedding reception.  We got great pictures!

[Deleted User]

I'm an incredibly patient person, and will be the opposite of a bridezilla when it comes time to really plan, but the idea of having more than about two children in the wedding gives me hives.  Do you really want to be wrangling all your mini-family members on your wedding day.  "Okay, you walk with Elsa.  Elsa, come here, you need to walk now.  Take Anna's hand.  No, you can't take your stuffed turtle, you have a flower basket to carry.  Fine, take your stuffed turtle, but you have to go now.  Seriously, walk.  We went over all this yesterday.  This is why we rehearsed!  You need to get up to where mommy is sitting in the front row and sit with her.  Go.  Elsa, seriously, go.  Never mind.  Anna, just go without her."  That sounds like a super fun time.

Appropriate titles for people in your wedding party are Bridesmaid (yes, children who understand how to walk and smile and stand can do this), Groomsman, Flower Girl, Ring Bearer, Reader, and Guest.

Heffalump

adk19 said:

No, you can't take your stuffed turtle, you have a flower basket to carry.  Fine, take your stuffed turtle, but you have to go now. 

LOL, when DD was a FG in my brother's wedding, she was a few weeks shy of turning 3.  She had a stuffed Dory (from Finding Nemo) that she never went anywhere without.  (On the way to his wedding, TSA was barely able to get it away from her long enough to x-ray it.)  Sure enough, in his wedding photos, she has the basket in one hand and Dory in the other.  Now that DD is older and Dory lives in the toy box full-time, I really love that photo.

OP, to your question, the kids will feel important just being there, dressed up, sitting with their parents, using their good manners, dancing, etc.  I would avoid making up little things for them to do, and just enjoy their presence (and let them enjoy your wedding).  I've never heard anyone, regardless of age, say "I sure am glad I had a job to do at that wedding, otherwise I wouldn't have had as much fun!"  Kind of the opposite.   

arrrghmatey

I completely agree with PPs and echo their advice: Flower Girl and Ring Bearer are the only roles, and do not try to include everyone just to save feelings. 

Case in point: I have 6 nieces and one nephew. I originally wanted to use just my goddaughter as the FG and my one nephew as the RB. However, when I proposed this to my two sisters (my MOH and a BM), they FLIPPED, exclaiming "No! You HAVE to include everyone or else feelings will be hurt!" I'm all for the idea of making little ones learn the disappointment of not being included in everything, but these kids are already use to being included in everything, and they will be incredibly upset if they are left out. SO….I'm having 4 flower girls, added another bridesmaid (the oldest will be 11), and a ring bearer (the youngest is 2 and will just sit with daddy). It was easier for me to just go with the flow and figure out a way to make it work rather than deal with the alternative.

I told them: "Okay, find whatever white flower girl dresses you want and have fun paying for them all."

[Deleted User]

Not saying to do it, but things to consider with having kids in the cermony, it's more then just a cute factor

• You have to be ready for tantrums before going down the isle or as they go down the isle
• For every child in the wedding you need to get them a gift  $$
• For flower girl you have to get them flowers to hold or throw $$
• For each boy, you need to have something to hold $$
• For each child in the wedding party you have to invite them and their parents to the rehersal & dinner $$
• Transportation - will parents bring them or if you are renting a limo will they come in the limo. If so, will one of the parents be coming in limo also to keep eye on child or will a BM be put in charge of child. Depending on age you may have to let a parent come along to make the child more comfortable. If so, then you will need a larger limo to accomodate more people $$
• Photos - if you want the kids in photos away from wedding ceremony location, how will they get there, limo or parents? Keep in mind you can't do car seats in majority of limos.
• Who will be paying for their outfits & for the girls their hair?

Just trying to point out that while kids are cute, there is more then having the cuteness as part of your wedding day. Having flower girls & ring bearers does add to your wedding expenses so you need to make sure you have the budget for that or if you would rather take that expense & put the money towards something else.

lyndausvi

Meh, I had my 7 nieces and nephews in my wedding.  5 girls ages, 6, 10,10,10 and 13 (no twins, all my siblings had girls a few months apart).  Then we had the 2 boys, both aged 9 (again, not twins, born 6 days apart).

They were bridesmaids and groomsmen. They walked down the aisle in the attire that was picked out.  They stood nicely during the ceremony.  They walked back up the aisle.  They took pictures.    Just like adult WP members.

Cost wasn't an issue for us.  We hired a trolley for ALL the guests, so that wasn't an issue.   Most of the parents were in the WP, so that wasn't a problem. 

 Since they were immediate family they would have been in formal shots anyway.   My family does  formal immediate family shots.

My family invites immediate family to the RD regardless if they are in the WP or not.  So they kids would have been invited anyway.   That said, we invited ALL the guests to a welcome dinner, so they would have been invited via that too.

If I had to do it again I would still have them in the WP.

MyNameIsNot

CMGragain said:

My daughter did the Hokey Pokey with the kids at her wedding reception.  We got great pictures!

I like this. I would also take the opportunity to get all the kids together for some formal photos. 

It's pretty rare that all of the cousins on my mom's side are in the same place at the same time. We took advantage of our wedding photographer to get some shots of all the cousins (most of whom were still kids) with our grandparents. It was the first time we'd been all together in at least 5 years.

banana468

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

Jen4948

banana468 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, takes a long time, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.

And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it. The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding, the kids may not wanted to do it, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids.

banana468

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, takes a long time, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants. And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it. The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding, the kids may not wanted to do it, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids.

OK, this wasn't a hypothetical.   I'm in the family (as an IL) where this is done and it works.   When you have 11 siblings and they're all having kids it's easier to do and the kids are attending the weddings.   But I understand that this isn't for everyone.  

FWIW, in one instance, the statement was made, 'Here's a flower crown for your DD if you want to bring her to the wedding."   That was it.   We let her home and all was fine with the world.

Jen4948

banana468 said:

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, takes a long time, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants. And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it. The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding, the kids may not wanted to do it, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids.

OK, this wasn't a hypothetical.   I'm in the family (as an IL) where this is done and it works.   When you have 11 siblings and they're all having kids it's easier to do and the kids are attending the weddings.   But I understand that this isn't for everyone.  

FWIW, in one instance, the statement was made, 'Here's a flower crown for your DD if you want to bring her to the wedding."   That was it.   We let her home and all was fine with the world.

Stuck in box

Had any of the kids not wanted to do it, or their parents opposed it, or the couple weren't okay with it, would their wishes have been respected without any pressure to change their minds?

PrettyGirlLost

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, This would actually be very simple- the parents all sit in the rows behind the WP and one of them can stand up and help get the kids into their seats after they walked down the aisle  takes a long time  not necessarily, it's just a pack of kids walking down an aisle.  It wouldn't inherently go any more slowly, just because they are kids, than the rest of the processional.  Some of the slowest processionals I have ever witnessed were just a few GMs/BMs dawdling down the aisle, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.   Huh?  No, not at all, since THE COUPLE would be the ones to ask that the kids be in the processional.  And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it.   Yeah. . . ?  The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding so then they wouldn't have asked every child in their family to be in their processional, as the OP clearly WANTS to do, the kids may not wanted to do it  then they can say no and not participate, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids  then they can say no and decline to have their kids participate.

Jen4948

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, This would actually be very simple- the parents all sit in the rows behind the WP and one of them can stand up and help get the kids into their seats after they walked down the aisle  takes a long time  not necessarily, it's just a pack of kids walking down an aisle.  It wouldn't inherently go any more slowly, just because they are kids, than the rest of the processional.  Some of the slowest processionals I have ever witnessed were just a few GMs/BMs dawdling down the aisle, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.   Huh?  No, not at all, since THE COUPLE would be the ones to ask that the kids be in the processional.  And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it.   Yeah. . . ?  The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding so then they wouldn't have asked every child in their family to be in their processional, as the OP clearly WANTS to do, the kids may not wanted to do it  then they can say no and not participate, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids  then they can say no and decline to have their kids participate.

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it.  The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?

PrettyGirlLost

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, This would actually be very simple- the parents all sit in the rows behind the WP and one of them can stand up and help get the kids into their seats after they walked down the aisle  takes a long time  not necessarily, it's just a pack of kids walking down an aisle.  It wouldn't inherently go any more slowly, just because they are kids, than the rest of the processional.  Some of the slowest processionals I have ever witnessed were just a few GMs/BMs dawdling down the aisle, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.   Huh?  No, not at all, since THE COUPLE would be the ones to ask that the kids be in the processional.  And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it.   Yeah. . . ?  The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding so then they wouldn't have asked every child in their family to be in their processional, as the OP clearly WANTS to do, the kids may not wanted to do it  then they can say no and not participate, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids  then they can say no and decline to have their kids participate.

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  Yes, because typically people don't participate in shit they don't want to participate in.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it. Then they need to decline participation.  If they don't, and go along with having their kids in the wedding, the advice to the OP doesn't change.  The kids are still in the wedding, so here's how to include them- blah, blah, blah. 

Are you suggesting that no one should ask kids to be in their wedding on the off chance that the parents can't act like adults and say, "Thanks for thinking of including the kids but we'd prefer they not participate"? 

The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Adults need to be able to set and enforce boundaries, even with their own families.  If a couple of grown adults can't say no to things, they have bigger issues than their wedding processional.    But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, since the OP WANTS to include the kids- that's the whole point of this discussion.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  Then the kids/parents just say no!  No one is holding guns to anyone's heads! And in the context of Banana's story, everyone was seemingly fine with the kids participating.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  Who knows!  You will get a mix of those reactions, depending on the specific family and people involved.  That hypothetical situation is outside of what we are discussing- OP asked for ways to include multiple kids in her processional, Lynda suggested having them as BMs/GMs like she did, and Banana suggested having them all as FGs/RBs as is done in her family.  We don't need to speculate on all the possible permutations of how passive aggressive adults may or may not feel expected, forced, or guilted into allowing their kids to participate.  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?  Depends on what the couple wants in that situation, which is again a hypothetical irrelevant to the current OP and not beneficial to her to speculate about.

Jen4948

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, This would actually be very simple- the parents all sit in the rows behind the WP and one of them can stand up and help get the kids into their seats after they walked down the aisle  takes a long time  not necessarily, it's just a pack of kids walking down an aisle.  It wouldn't inherently go any more slowly, just because they are kids, than the rest of the processional.  Some of the slowest processionals I have ever witnessed were just a few GMs/BMs dawdling down the aisle, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.   Huh?  No, not at all, since THE COUPLE would be the ones to ask that the kids be in the processional.  And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it.   Yeah. . . ?  The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding so then they wouldn't have asked every child in their family to be in their processional, as the OP clearly WANTS to do, the kids may not wanted to do it  then they can say no and not participate, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids  then they can say no and decline to have their kids participate.

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  Yes, because typically people don't participate in shit they don't want to participate in.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it. Then they need to decline participation.  If they don't, and go along with having their kids in the wedding, the advice to the OP doesn't change.  The kids are still in the wedding, so here's how to include them- blah, blah, blah. 

Are you suggesting that no one should ask kids to be in their wedding on the off chance that the parents can't act like adults and say, "Thanks for thinking of including the kids but we'd prefer they not participate"? 

The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Adults need to be able to set and enforce boundaries, even with their own families.  If a couple of grown adults can't say no to things, they have bigger issues than their wedding processional.    But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, since the OP WANTS to include the kids- that's the whole point of this discussion.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  Then the kids/parents just say no!  No one is holding guns to anyone's heads! And in the context of Banana's story, everyone was seemingly fine with the kids participating.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  Who knows!  You will get a mix of those reactions, depending on the specific family and people involved.  That hypothetical situation is outside of what we are discussing- OP asked for ways to include multiple kids in her processional, Lynda suggested having them as BMs/GMs like she did, and Banana suggested having them all as FGs/RBs as is done in her family.  We don't need to speculate on all the possible permutations of how passive aggressive adults may or may not feel expected, forced, or guilted into allowing their kids to participate.  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?  Depends on what the couple wants in that situation, which is again a hypothetical irrelevant to the current OP and not beneficial to her to speculate about.

I still think that while it may have worked in one instance for banana468, as a general rule it's more trouble than it's worth and it creates expectations that are not always reasonable.  Also, I think everyone needs to accept that kids are not always entitled to starring roles and sometimes just need to be spectators if they are there at all.

PrettyGirlLost

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

I've seen some families where all the little boys are ring bearers and all the little girls are flower girls.   They all walk down the aisles and then someone at the front helps get them to sit with their parents.    It's not for everyone but it *can* work.   

I would not do this because it needs a lot of coordination, This would actually be very simple- the parents all sit in the rows behind the WP and one of them can stand up and help get the kids into their seats after they walked down the aisle  takes a long time  not necessarily, it's just a pack of kids walking down an aisle.  It wouldn't inherently go any more slowly, just because they are kids, than the rest of the processional.  Some of the slowest processionals I have ever witnessed were just a few GMs/BMs dawdling down the aisle, and instills a sense of entitlement in the kids and their parents that they always have to be expected to be flower girls and ring bearers regardless if what the couple wants.   Huh?  No, not at all, since THE COUPLE would be the ones to ask that the kids be in the processional.  And all that assumes that all parties are even okay with it.   Yeah. . . ?  The couple may have wanted an adults-only wedding so then they wouldn't have asked every child in their family to be in their processional, as the OP clearly WANTS to do, the kids may not wanted to do it  then they can say no and not participate, and their parents may feel burdened with the extra financial, time, and other costs that go with not only having to bring the kids to the wedding and wedding-related events but having to attend along with their kids  then they can say no and decline to have their kids participate.

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  Yes, because typically people don't participate in shit they don't want to participate in.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it. Then they need to decline participation.  If they don't, and go along with having their kids in the wedding, the advice to the OP doesn't change.  The kids are still in the wedding, so here's how to include them- blah, blah, blah. 

Are you suggesting that no one should ask kids to be in their wedding on the off chance that the parents can't act like adults and say, "Thanks for thinking of including the kids but we'd prefer they not participate"? 

The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Adults need to be able to set and enforce boundaries, even with their own families.  If a couple of grown adults can't say no to things, they have bigger issues than their wedding processional.    But that's irrelevant to the topic at hand, since the OP WANTS to include the kids- that's the whole point of this discussion.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  Then the kids/parents just say no!  No one is holding guns to anyone's heads! And in the context of Banana's story, everyone was seemingly fine with the kids participating.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  Who knows!  You will get a mix of those reactions, depending on the specific family and people involved.  That hypothetical situation is outside of what we are discussing- OP asked for ways to include multiple kids in her processional, Lynda suggested having them as BMs/GMs like she did, and Banana suggested having them all as FGs/RBs as is done in her family.  We don't need to speculate on all the possible permutations of how passive aggressive adults may or may not feel expected, forced, or guilted into allowing their kids to participate.  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?  Depends on what the couple wants in that situation, which is again a hypothetical irrelevant to the current OP and not beneficial to her to speculate about.

I still think that while it may have worked in one instance for banana468, as a general rule it's more trouble than it's worth and it creates expectations that are not always reasonable.  Also, I think everyone needs to accept that kids are not always entitled to starring roles and sometimes just need to be spectators if they are there at all.

Banana wasn't suggesting it as a "general rule." though.  She brought it up as a solution for the OP, who wants to include a bunch of kids in her processional.

banana468

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

Jen4948

banana468 said:

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

banana468

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

I never said that anyone should have expectations!    My point is that if you think it could work to have a lot of kids in the wedding, it could.   That's it.   

PrettyGirlLost

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

You're not?  Who said this then?

Jen4948 said:

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it.  The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?

Those are all hypotheticals.  and this statement in and of itself is a hypothetical:

Jen4948 said:

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

That's you assuming the hypothetical situation that other people expect their kids to be in someone's wedding.

What is it with you and kids in weddings?  It seems to be a trigger topic for you. 

Did your parents expect for you to be in someone's wedding when you were younger, guilt the bride and groom into including you, make you walk down the aisle against your will, and then refuse to take you to the reception?

Maggie0829

OP how many is a lot of kids?  But if you want these kids in your wedding then Banana's idea seems to be the best way to go about it.  All you are doing is asking the kids (and parents) if they want to be a part of your wedding.  Then it is up the parents and kids to decide if they want to be in it or not.

I am not really sure why Banana's suggestion was made into this huge thing.  It was a perfectly acceptable suggestion.  

Jen4948

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

You're not?  Who said this then?

Jen4948 said:

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it.  The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?

Those are all hypotheticals.  and this statement in and of itself is a hypothetical:

Jen4948 said:

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

That's you assuming the hypothetical situation that other people expect their kids to be in someone's wedding.

What is it with you and kids in weddings?  It seems to be a trigger topic for you. 

Did your parents expect for you to be in someone's wedding when you were younger, guilt the bride and groom into including you, make you walk down the aisle against your will, and then refuse to take you to the reception?

It's none of your business.  Why does everyone have to be a fan of kids in weddings for you? 

Wait, don't answer.  It's none of my business.

Quit snarking at me because I'm not a fan of the idea.  Nobody has to be.

banana468

Maybe it was a big problem and she had to wear a giant hat but she didn't want to wear a giant hat but they said, "Wear the giant hat!" and then no one was happy because she wore the giant hat.  

That would be a sad story.

But it's just a hypothetical. 

Jen4948

banana468 said:

Maybe it was a big problem and she had to wear a giant hat but she didn't want to wear a giant hat but they said, "Wear the giant hat!" and then no one was happy because she wore the giant hat.  

That would be a sad story.

But it's just a hypothetical. 

Knock it off, banana468.

PrettyGirlLost

Maggie0829 said:

OP how many is a lot of kids?  But if you want these kids in your wedding then Banana's idea seems to be the best way to go about it.  All you are doing is asking the kids (and parents) if they want to be a part of your wedding.  Then it is up the parents and kids to decide if they want to be in it or not.

I am not really sure why Banana's suggestion was made into this huge thing.  It was a perfectly acceptable suggestion.  

Because clearly

Maggie0829

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

banana468 said:

But Jen, by that note, the couple needs to respect that they could ask ONE girl and ONE boy to be in the wedding and the parents may say no.   You're creating A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here.

I do agree that neither kids nor their parents should expect to be invited to be in every wedding but when they are, it *can* work without needing to hire Frank and Howard as wedding planners. 

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

You're not?  Who said this then?

Jen4948 said:

All the things you have in purple assume that everyone is okay with the kids being part of the wedding.  But, even in families where that's "expected," sometimes not everyone is okay with it.  The couple may be pressured into agreeing to it rather than asking for the kids' participation.  Or even if the couple wants it, the kids and/or their parents don't.  What I'm asking is, do all these people who "expect" all the kids to participate back off gracefully if one or more of the parties involved refuse to do it, or do they get pissy and keep "expecting" and "insisting" on it until they give in and do it grudgingly?  What if you have a situation where one side "expects" it and the other side opposes it?

Those are all hypotheticals.  and this statement in and of itself is a hypothetical:

Jen4948 said:

I never suggested otherwise.  I'm not the one creating "A metric fuckton of hypotheticals here."  I think having such expectations gives rise to the "metric fuckton of hypotheticals" that could arise from having every single fucking kid on both sides of the family in the wedding party.

That's you assuming the hypothetical situation that other people expect their kids to be in someone's wedding.

What is it with you and kids in weddings?  It seems to be a trigger topic for you. 

Did your parents expect for you to be in someone's wedding when you were younger, guilt the bride and groom into including you, make you walk down the aisle against your will, and then refuse to take you to the reception?

It's none of your business.  Why does everyone have to be a fan of kids in weddings for you? 

Wait, don't answer.  It's none of my business.

Quit snarking at me because I'm not a fan of the idea.  Nobody has to be.

There is a difference between not being a fan of the idea and trying to build a ridiculous argument against it because you hate kids being in weddings.

Am I a fan of a lot of kids in weddings?  No, but it isn't my wedding and the OP wants the kids in her wedding.  So Bananas suggestion makes sense.