Having our toddler son in the wedding? Ring bearer? Walk me down the aisle?

CMGragain

Many pastors do not allow children under the age of five to be part of the wedding party.  I have seen weddings grind to a halt because of children, who were very young, crying and acting out their stress and frustration.  He can be in your pictures without having a role in the ceremony and procession.
If he is willing to walk down the aisle with you, I don't think that would be too bad, as long as Grandma is down fron to sit with him as soon as you have finished walking.

Jen4948

MagicInk said:

shrekspeare said:

MagicInk said:

shrekspeare said:

Too young to be a ring bearer, I think.

Think he might be younger then 3. But I could be wrong....I'm terrible with kid ages. And teens and adults. Old people too. Basically I never know how old anyone is.

I know. I figured he's probably two or so, just an example. :} I definitely wouldn't let a child under 4 be the ring bearer. Even a 4 year old is iffy for me.

I'm just gonna say....I'm really glad our flower girl is a 7 year old whose pretty mature for her age. I feel confident we wont' have any melt downs. We're not bothering with a ring bearer. Putting children in charge of rings has always seemed like an odd idea to me. I barley think I should be in charge of rings.

Many couples who have ring bearers don't give the kids the actual rings that will be exchanged, but cheap ones that they are okay with the kids handling.

soontobemrshamilton

gosh, I guess I just haven't really given it a lot of thought. I know 3 year olds are unpredictable and fussy and so on, but I want my lil guy somewhere in the ceremony. He will be sitting up front with grandma, but having him walk down the aisle some how would be so cute and special to us.

I guess you just wont know what they will do until the time comes.

chibiyui

My three year old niece was the ring bearer at my wedding. She was adorable, and made it down the aisle fine. Which was a surprise! She did have our rings, they were in a latched box.

Her mom bribed her with lollipops, that helped.

Jen4948

soontobemrshamilton said:

gosh, I guess I just haven't really given it a lot of thought. I know 3 year olds are unpredictable and fussy and so on, but I want my lil guy somewhere in the ceremony. He will be sitting up front with grandma, but having him walk down the aisle some how would be so cute and special to us.

I guess you just wont know what they will do until the time comes.

As cute and special as having him walk down the aisle may be, I'd only have him do it if you know for sure he can handle it.  You never know-a kid that age can be absolutely incredibly great one day and then lose it the next, so it might even be best to hold off until your wedding day and not "plan" for him to do it, and then see how he is on that day.  If on that day he can't handle going down the aisle, then just have him sit with grandma.  In fact, is grandma going to be part of the processional, and if so, can she accompany him down the aisle and then take him to their seats?

soontobemrshamilton

I haven't thought that far ahead, but another good idea....walking with Grandma. I will keep that one in mind! Thanks

Jen4948

soontobemrshamilton said:

I haven't thought that far ahead, but another good idea....walking with Grandma. I will keep that one in mind! Thanks

You're welcome!  Congratulations and best wishes!

MairePoppy

I think it would be fine to have your son walk in with you and your dad. Or he could be a best man and stand with his dad. He will feel secure with one of his parents. He could hold the ring pillow. He could sit with your dad during the ceremony. 

As far as your vows go, if you and your fi want to vow to take care of Junior and his future siblings, as part of your marriage vows, that's lovely. I have heard couples promise to welcome and care for children during their marriage vows. You could have the officiant do a family blessing.

I agree that it would be inappropriate to have Junior say vows at your marriage ceremony, since he's not actually getting married and he's not old enough to consent to anything.

QueerFemme

I wasn't correcting your grammar to be snippy. And I actually corrected spelling, not grammar. I was correcting the spelling because you used the same wrong spelling a few times, which normally means it wasn't just a typo.

Personally, I'd rather someone mention an error like that, so I could correct it going forward. It really wasn't snippy, it was an attempt at being helpful.

Aisle = hall or corridor.

Isle = an island

KatieinBkln

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

Maggie0829

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

KatieinBkln

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

STUCK, GAH

I guess because they're family? Because children as ring bearers/flower girls are fairly traditional? Because if a group of adults can't efficiently handle a (potential) tantrum, remove the child and go on with their day, then I question their adulthood status? I don't know, I don't think a kid needs to have some deep understanding of what a wedding is in order to have an understanding that they are loved, and included in something. Kids love being included, they don't give a shit why or what they're being included in. And if a wedding is, at least partially, a family event (in that it is the creation of a new family unit), then I think the inclusion of children is perfectly acceptable. (I do not have any problem with child-free weddings, either, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to come down to, Children: they're kind of a hassle, AMIRITE? and that doesn't seem right, either).

Senecaf

I would have him as the ring bearer and leave it as that. Walking Grandma down the aisle would be sweet too. I would leave him out of the vows though. I think it would be strange to include him but have nothing for any future children you may have.

FI and I have two children. They are 5 and 7 years old and will be the flower girl and ring bearer. They are so pumped for the day and I think it will be adorable. I guess they are sort of props because of the cute factor but they are old enough to understand what is happening (oh the "why aren't you married" disscusions we've had) and are so happy to be a part of mom and dad's wedding. But at the end of the day it is MOM's and DAD'S wedding. We unceremoniously committed ourselves to them by having them.

Maggie0829

KatieinBkln said:

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

STUCK, GAH

I guess because they're family? Because children as ring bearers/flower girls are fairly traditional? Because if a group of adults can't efficiently handle a (potential) tantrum, remove the child and go on with their day, then I question their adulthood status? I don't know, I don't think a kid needs to have some deep understanding of what a wedding is in order to have an understanding that they are loved, and included in something. Kids love being included, they don't give a shit why or what they're being included in. And if a wedding is, at least partially, a family event (in that it is the creation of a new family unit), then I think the inclusion of children is perfectly acceptable. (I do not have any problem with child-free weddings, either, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to come down to, Children: they're kind of a hassle, AMIRITE? and that doesn't seem right, either).

But I guess I just see it from the standpoint that they are included by just being there.  They don't need to have a role when that role is more for the parent then for the actual child.  I do think that children close to the couple should be included in pictures because pictures will last a lot longer then the memory of the kid (I mean how much can one remember back when they were 3?).

KatieinBkln

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

STUCK, GAH

I guess because they're family? Because children as ring bearers/flower girls are fairly traditional? Because if a group of adults can't efficiently handle a (potential) tantrum, remove the child and go on with their day, then I question their adulthood status? I don't know, I don't think a kid needs to have some deep understanding of what a wedding is in order to have an understanding that they are loved, and included in something. Kids love being included, they don't give a shit why or what they're being included in. And if a wedding is, at least partially, a family event (in that it is the creation of a new family unit), then I think the inclusion of children is perfectly acceptable. (I do not have any problem with child-free weddings, either, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to come down to, Children: they're kind of a hassle, AMIRITE? and that doesn't seem right, either).

But I guess I just see it from the standpoint that they are included by just being there.  They don't need to have a role when that role is more for the parent then for the actual child.  I do think that children close to the couple should be included in pictures because pictures will last a lot longer then the memory of the kid (I mean how much can one remember back when they were 3?).

That makes sense. I guess for me the caveat is always making sure that whatever role is age-appropriate, and appropriate to the specific kid. There are 3-year-olds who would have no problem consistently walking down an aisle with a ring pillow, and 7-year-olds who couldn't handle it. I think when people know their audience and make sure not to ask too much of a little one, the chances of having it be a negative experience for the kid go down considerably. I know a lot of people think the really little ones won't remember, and that is probably objectively true--but 3-year-olds are often PUMPED about being "helpers" and feeling empowered, so I don't think they're necessarily too young to get anything out of it, even if the only memory they have is assisted by photos.

soontobemrshamilton

KatieinBkln said:

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

STUCK, GAH

I guess because they're family? Because children as ring bearers/flower girls are fairly traditional? Because if a group of adults can't efficiently handle a (potential) tantrum, remove the child and go on with their day, then I question their adulthood status? I don't know, I don't think a kid needs to have some deep understanding of what a wedding is in order to have an understanding that they are loved, and included in something. Kids love being included, they don't give a shit why or what they're being included in. And if a wedding is, at least partially, a family event (in that it is the creation of a new family unit), then I think the inclusion of children is perfectly acceptable. (I do not have any problem with child-free weddings, either, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to come down to, Children: they're kind of a hassle, AMIRITE? and that doesn't seem right, either).

Very well said. Of course he doesn't know what's going on, but we do and we will most likely have it on film. So when he IS old enough to understand hopefully he gets a kick out of watching it. And everything that @KatieinBkln said is spot on. Kids love being included in things, he's going to understand something is going on. 

I also agree about people keep saying what a pain in the butt kids are. Once you have kids you learn to adapt to those sorts of things, it just isn't a big deal in my book. You learn to realize that when you have a child. If you decides at that moment he doesn't want to walk, then ok, no biggie. If he starts to cry at the ceremony, then someone will walk out with him. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

mysticl

OP, let me offer a different view on the vows.  Let's say your son had been born after the wedding, would you hold a ceremony to make vows to him and declare the three of you a family?  I highly doubt it.  He is yours. You don't need a ceremony to make him yours or his father's. Biology has taken care of that.  You don't need to make formal vows to him, your commitment to him has been shown in each hug, kiss, diaper change, midnight feeding, etc. That means a whole lot more than some pretty words. No, my husband and I didn't have children before we got married but some of my friends did. Their children were guests at their weddings. Nothing more. They sat with their grandparents during the ceremony. 

soontobemrshamilton

I understand the vow thing, I'm having second thoughts about it now. This is why I posted this, it's opened up my eyes some for sure. I will still, somehow, hopefully, have him walk down the aisle! Thanks for all the advice...even the ones from you snippy ladies

MairePoppy

That's great that you actually took our opinions into consideration. 

QueerFemme wasn't being snippy. 'Aisle' is a word that's used often around here. We know it won't show up in spell check because 'isle' is also a word. She was being helpful.

CMGragain

soontobemrshamilton said:

KatieinBkln said:

Maggie0829 said:

KatieinBkln said:

OK, am I crazy? Or is it just because I don't have kids? But...I don't think the possibility that a 3-year-old might not be able to get down the aisle is a good reason to exclude him from being a ring bearer. I mean, kids are unpredictable. If he has a tantrum, someone grabs him, wedding goes on, right? I thought that GIF was hilarious and cute, not some disaster. I feel like as long as people have contingency plans (and parents of toddlers ALWAYS have contingency plans, trust) it should be fine...right? What am I missing here? My sister's flower girl was the daughter of a professional baseball player. She was told to throw the petals, so she grabbed handfuls and straight-up CHUCKED them. It was not terrible, it was adorable!

I guess for me I just don't understand having a little kid who most likely has zero idea of what is really going on participate in a wedding.  At that point you are basically using them as a prop and as an added cute factor.  I just don't see the point.  If you want to take pictures with them then great but why try to get them to walk down the aisle when you know that they could go into a crazy temper tantrum at any moment?

STUCK, GAH

I guess because they're family? Because children as ring bearers/flower girls are fairly traditional? Because if a group of adults can't efficiently handle a (potential) tantrum, remove the child and go on with their day, then I question their adulthood status? I don't know, I don't think a kid needs to have some deep understanding of what a wedding is in order to have an understanding that they are loved, and included in something. Kids love being included, they don't give a shit why or what they're being included in. And if a wedding is, at least partially, a family event (in that it is the creation of a new family unit), then I think the inclusion of children is perfectly acceptable. (I do not have any problem with child-free weddings, either, but a lot of the arguments in this thread seem to come down to, Children: they're kind of a hassle, AMIRITE? and that doesn't seem right, either).

Very well said. Of course he doesn't know what's going on, but we do and we will most likely have it on film. So when he IS old enough to understand hopefully he gets a kick out of watching it. And everything that @KatieinBkln said is spot on. Kids love being included in things, he's going to understand something is going on. 

I also agree about people keep saying what a pain in the butt kids are. Once you have kids you learn to adapt to those sorts of things, it just isn't a big deal in my book. You learn to realize that when you have a child. If you decides at that moment he doesn't want to walk, then ok, no biggie. If he starts to cry at the ceremony, then someone will walk out with him. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

As a church organist, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this from brides, and how many times those poor children stressed out and fell apart when it was "show time"!

KatieinBkln

CMGragain said:

. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

As a church organist, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this from brides, and how many times those poor children stressed out and fell apart when it was "show time"!

Ha, I believe that! However, I'm also of the opinion that given that kids of a certain age tend to experience the entire spectrum of human emotion several times over in a given day, the fact that being in a wedding "caused" a meltdown probably won't do them any long-term damage. As long as the grown-ups in charge get that crying kid OUTTA there, I'm good. (I say this as a former tantrum-throwing 2-year-old who turned out okay, I think).

Jen4948

KatieinBkln said:

CMGragain said:

. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

As a church organist, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this from brides, and how many times those poor children stressed out and fell apart when it was "show time"!

Ha, I believe that! However, I'm also of the opinion that given that kids of a certain age tend to experience the entire spectrum of human emotion several times over in a given day, the fact that being in a wedding "caused" a meltdown probably won't do them any long-term damage. As long as the grown-ups in charge get that crying kid OUTTA there, I'm good. (I say this as a former tantrum-throwing 2-year-old who turned out okay, I think).

It may not do any or much damage, but grown-ups in charge can't always be counted on to get that crying kid OUTTA there, and it's not fun for anyone else present to have to witness.

KatieinBkln

Jen4948 said:

KatieinBkln said:

CMGragain said:

. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

As a church organist, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this from brides, and how many times those poor children stressed out and fell apart when it was "show time"!

Ha, I believe that! However, I'm also of the opinion that given that kids of a certain age tend to experience the entire spectrum of human emotion several times over in a given day, the fact that being in a wedding "caused" a meltdown probably won't do them any long-term damage. As long as the grown-ups in charge get that crying kid OUTTA there, I'm good. (I say this as a former tantrum-throwing 2-year-old who turned out okay, I think).

It may not do any or much damage, but grown-ups in charge can't always be counted on to get that crying kid OUTTA there, and it's not fun for anyone else present to have to witness.

Grown-ups gotta be grown-ups. I guess my ultimate thesis on this post comes down to that: Kids act like kids, but that fact shouldn't exclude them from a wedding if that's what the couple wants. And when kids act like kids but adults fail to adult? That's on the adults, not the kid. I am a firm believer in adult accountability, and I would give major side eye to anyone who thought letting a toddler meltdown go unchecked is okay.

emmaaa

Jen4948 said:

KatieinBkln said:

CMGragain said:

. I also know my son very well, and he does great in social situations and I'm not too worried about him acting out!!

As a church organist, I cannot tell you how many times I heard this from brides, and how many times those poor children stressed out and fell apart when it was "show time"!

Ha, I believe that! However, I'm also of the opinion that given that kids of a certain age tend to experience the entire spectrum of human emotion several times over in a given day, the fact that being in a wedding "caused" a meltdown probably won't do them any long-term damage. As long as the grown-ups in charge get that crying kid OUTTA there, I'm good. (I say this as a former tantrum-throwing 2-year-old who turned out okay, I think).

It may not do any or much damage, but grown-ups in charge can't always be counted on to get that crying kid OUTTA there, and it's not fun for anyone else present to have to witness.

Likely, the child would have a melt down regardless of being in the wedding for 1 minute to walk up the aisle and then to sit with an adult. You can't always control what children will do during the ceremony and that is the risk people know they are taking by 1) including them in the ceremony and 2) inviting children to begin with. If you don't want to deal with it, then don't invite them or involve children. Plain and simple. This is one of those things that the bride and groom get to say: "This is our wedding and this is what we are doing." Although listening to a child scream isn't fun, that doesn't constitute not inviting them all together if a couple wishes to include them. 

Jen4948

I am just saying that for guests, it is not fun to have to watch and listen to meltdowns because parents don't immediately take the kid having one away, which happens sometimes, because parents either think the kid should "cry it out," think it's "cute/adorable/etc." that their kid is having a meltdown, are not paying attention, or don't give a damn.  If a guest accepts an invitation, they have no way of knowing until the ceremony takes place that someone else's kids will be present.

emmaaa

@Jen4948 I absolutely agree that a child should be removed from the situation if they are causing a scene. Let them "cry it out" outside or in the churches "cry room" (apparently some churches actually have these with a speaker so they can still hear what is going on). At the same time, it happens. Kids cry. That's a risk of being in public where children are, you may have to hear them cry...horror. If a child is crying during the wedding, it may be uncomfortable for the duration but it in no way ruins the ceremony (which will end in about 15 minutes).

KatieinBkln

Jen4948 said:

I am just saying that for guests, it is not fun to have to watch and listen to meltdowns because parents don't immediately take the kid having one away, which happens sometimes, because parents either think the kid should "cry it out," think it's "cute/adorable/etc." that their kid is having a meltdown, are not paying attention, or don't give a damn.  If a guest accepts an invitation, they have no way of knowing until the ceremony takes place that someone else's kids will be present.

Totally true. And totally within your rights to hate it--I hate that shit, too. "Cry it out" is a technique for inside your own home/car, NOT for the public, ugh! Agree with @emmaa though that this possibility is not really a valid reason to not invite/include children, wholesale. Or, rather, it's not an etiquette thing to include or not include kids. It's absolutely a preference, and if people make the choice to allow kids, then they really need to take responsibility for any crying fits, because leaving them un-addressed is shitty to your guests who maybe hoped to actually hear your vows.

CMGragain

I think what bothers me th most about these child in the wedding scenarios is that the bride is thinking, "It's my wedding, and I want...."  vs. "This is a child, and what would be best for him is....".

emmaaa

@CMGragain Although I agree that a child's best interest should always be kept in mind, can you please explain how being in a wedding for limited time is more damaging to that child than sitting for the same amount of time? Espcially when their involvement is literally walking up the aisle and then sitting.

iloveu4ever

Why not let him stand by you guys?