Inviting people to "crash" our wedding?

peachy13

Weird question for the etiquette pros. (Every time I think I
have this wedding thing down, a bizarre situation pops up... and I just want to
make sure I’m on the right side of etiquette.) I’m not trying to B-list or have
a tiered reception... but I have a little bit of a unique situation. FI’s
sister Beth and her husband John have a 2-year-old who will also be our amazing
little ring bearer. But because Beth and John want to party later on at the
reception sans toddler – they’ve asked John’s sister Amy and Amy’s fiancé Tim
to pick the little guy up after dinner right at our venue, go home, and babysit him for the rest of the night.

My FI and I get along with Amy and Tim at family events but
we’re not so close that we would be inviting them to the wedding. However,
seeing as though they’re coming to the venue after dinner to pick up our nephew…
what is everyone’s thoughts on my FI and I telling them that they’re welcome to
pop in and have a drink or a few dances or a piece of cake before heading home? I was originally thinking
this was a great idea because they’re recently engaged and currently looking
for wedding ideas, and also because our venue is an hour away from their house and
even though they’re not guests, I still want to offer some hospitality to them.
But then I was thinking that I don’t want this to come off as rude or anything,
like asking people to show up for a tiered reception. I don’t think they would see
it like that, but I just wanted to make sure. I also know that I would have to
coordinate with the venue regarding the open bar headcount so that I’m not
cheating them.

novella1186

peachy13 said:

Weird question for the etiquette pros. (Every time I think I
have this wedding thing down, a bizarre situation pops up... and I just want to
make sure I’m on the right side of etiquette.) I’m not trying to B-list or have
a tiered reception... but I have a little bit of a unique situation. FI’s
sister Beth and her husband John have a 2-year-old who will also be our amazing
little ring bearer. But because Beth and John want to party later on at the
reception sans toddler – they’ve asked John’s sister Amy and Amy’s fiancé Tim
to pick the little guy up after dinner right at our venue, go home, and babysit him for the rest of the night.

My FI and I get along with Amy and Tim at family events but
we’re not so close that we would be inviting them to the wedding. However,
seeing as though they’re coming to the venue after dinner to pick up our nephew…
what is everyone’s thoughts on my FI and I telling them that they’re welcome to
pop in and have a drink or a few dances or a piece of cake before heading home? I was originally thinking
this was a great idea because they’re recently engaged and currently looking
for wedding ideas, and also because our venue is an hour away from their house and
even though they’re not guests, I still want to offer some hospitality to them.
But then I was thinking that I don’t want this to come off as rude or anything,
like asking people to show up for a tiered reception. I don’t think they would see
it like that, but I just wanted to make sure. I also know that I would have to
coordinate with the venue regarding the open bar headcount so that I’m not
cheating them.

I wouldn't invite them to have a drink, mainly because they then have to drive an hour home with someone else's child in their car. 

thisismynickname2

So, Amy and Tim have already agreed to pick up the child, right? 

If they've already agreed to do so, I don't see any reason to not offer them hospitality. 

The reason I say this is that if they've already agreed to it, they're already aware they're not invited, are fine with it, and know they're showing up to an event already in full spin. 

I'd reach out to them and say, "Hey! Beth and John said you were taking Nephew for the night. That's so nice of you! When you arrive, be sure to come over and say hi and have some cake or a drink." 

bethsmiles

novella1186 said:

peachy13 said:

Weird question for the etiquette pros. (Every time I think I
have this wedding thing down, a bizarre situation pops up... and I just want to
make sure I’m on the right side of etiquette.) I’m not trying to B-list or have
a tiered reception... but I have a little bit of a unique situation. FI’s
sister Beth and her husband John have a 2-year-old who will also be our amazing
little ring bearer. But because Beth and John want to party later on at the
reception sans toddler – they’ve asked John’s sister Amy and Amy’s fiancé Tim
to pick the little guy up after dinner right at our venue, go home, and babysit him for the rest of the night.

My FI and I get along with Amy and Tim at family events but
we’re not so close that we would be inviting them to the wedding. However,
seeing as though they’re coming to the venue after dinner to pick up our nephew…
what is everyone’s thoughts on my FI and I telling them that they’re welcome to
pop in and have a drink or a few dances or a piece of cake before heading home? I was originally thinking
this was a great idea because they’re recently engaged and currently looking
for wedding ideas, and also because our venue is an hour away from their house and
even though they’re not guests, I still want to offer some hospitality to them.
But then I was thinking that I don’t want this to come off as rude or anything,
like asking people to show up for a tiered reception. I don’t think they would see
it like that, but I just wanted to make sure. I also know that I would have to
coordinate with the venue regarding the open bar headcount so that I’m not
cheating them.

I wouldn't invite them to have a drink, mainly because they then have to drive an hour home with someone else's child in their car. 

Well, they aren't both driving. One could have a drink if they wanted. I seriously doubt OP was hoping to encourage drinking and driving. 

novella1186

bethsmiles said:

novella1186 said:

peachy13 said:

Weird question for the etiquette pros. (Every time I think I
have this wedding thing down, a bizarre situation pops up... and I just want to
make sure I’m on the right side of etiquette.) I’m not trying to B-list or have
a tiered reception... but I have a little bit of a unique situation. FI’s
sister Beth and her husband John have a 2-year-old who will also be our amazing
little ring bearer. But because Beth and John want to party later on at the
reception sans toddler – they’ve asked John’s sister Amy and Amy’s fiancé Tim
to pick the little guy up after dinner right at our venue, go home, and babysit him for the rest of the night.

My FI and I get along with Amy and Tim at family events but
we’re not so close that we would be inviting them to the wedding. However,
seeing as though they’re coming to the venue after dinner to pick up our nephew…
what is everyone’s thoughts on my FI and I telling them that they’re welcome to
pop in and have a drink or a few dances or a piece of cake before heading home? I was originally thinking
this was a great idea because they’re recently engaged and currently looking
for wedding ideas, and also because our venue is an hour away from their house and
even though they’re not guests, I still want to offer some hospitality to them.
But then I was thinking that I don’t want this to come off as rude or anything,
like asking people to show up for a tiered reception. I don’t think they would see
it like that, but I just wanted to make sure. I also know that I would have to
coordinate with the venue regarding the open bar headcount so that I’m not
cheating them.

I wouldn't invite them to have a drink, mainly because they then have to drive an hour home with someone else's child in their car. 

Well, they aren't both driving. One could have a drink if they wanted. I seriously doubt OP was hoping to encourage drinking and driving. 

lol No, I doubt she was trying to encourage it too. My initial reaction, though, was inviting for drinks is maybe not so good. Probably because of something that happened with my family, so sorry if my reaction was too negative.

thisismynickname, though. Just as casual, "Hey feel free to hang out for a bit." 

Jen4948

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

VulgarGirl

novella1186 said:

peachy13 said:

Weird question for the etiquette pros. (Every time I think I
have this wedding thing down, a bizarre situation pops up... and I just want to
make sure I’m on the right side of etiquette.) I’m not trying to B-list or have
a tiered reception... but I have a little bit of a unique situation. FI’s
sister Beth and her husband John have a 2-year-old who will also be our amazing
little ring bearer. But because Beth and John want to party later on at the
reception sans toddler – they’ve asked John’s sister Amy and Amy’s fiancé Tim
to pick the little guy up after dinner right at our venue, go home, and babysit him for the rest of the night.

My FI and I get along with Amy and Tim at family events but
we’re not so close that we would be inviting them to the wedding. However,
seeing as though they’re coming to the venue after dinner to pick up our nephew…
what is everyone’s thoughts on my FI and I telling them that they’re welcome to
pop in and have a drink or a few dances or a piece of cake before heading home? I was originally thinking
this was a great idea because they’re recently engaged and currently looking
for wedding ideas, and also because our venue is an hour away from their house and
even though they’re not guests, I still want to offer some hospitality to them.
But then I was thinking that I don’t want this to come off as rude or anything,
like asking people to show up for a tiered reception. I don’t think they would see
it like that, but I just wanted to make sure. I also know that I would have to
coordinate with the venue regarding the open bar headcount so that I’m not
cheating them.

I wouldn't invite them to have a drink, mainly because they then have to drive an hour home with someone else's child in their car. 

Now honeychild you know I love me some booze. But you do recognize drinks can be non-alcoholic in nature yes? Come on Novella. She's not saying they should do shots and then drive the kid home. A soda, maybe a cup of coffee, some water, the non-driver (do you both drive a car at once?) could have a glass of wine/whatever. 

I think it's totally fine to offer it to them in a casual way. @thisismynickname phrased it the way I would.

VulgarGirl

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

Seriously? OP isn't saying the kid has to GTFO. The parents are choosing for the kiddo to be sent home. You cannot tell your guests how to parent (unless the child in clearly in danger, ie: Johnny don't pull the crystal vase onto your head). 

I mean really Jen, what the fuck would you have done? Told them they couldn't have a sitter pick the kid up? That when kid was ready to leave, audios? Or that they kid had to stay the whole night no matter if they wanted to leave or not?

That's fucking rude as shit.

SP29

OP- I think it is fine to offer some hospitality in a casual way. I like the wording of @thisismynickname.

Otherwise, there is nothing wrong with what these parents are doing. The B&G can invite anyone they like- including small children. If the parents decide they want to stay out for the night and have a sitter come pick up their child at X time- that is there choice and not for anyone else to judge. I don't understand how offering some hospitality turned into "don't invite young children". 

peachy13

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

When FI and I got engaged, his sister and I decided together to have him be the ring bearer, and that was like a year and half ago when he was a newborn. It was totally her decision to ask her sister in law to pick him up after dinner and I know she's really excited to a) have her son be part of a family wedding and b) party later with the grown-ups. Her sister in law Amy is a peach and loooves the kid just as much as we all do and I know she doesn't mind babysitting -- her and her fiance are cool people and that was why I wanted to invite them in for a refreshment during their long journey.

Thank you all for the good advice! I love @thisismynickname 's wording.

Jen4948

peachy13 said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

When FI and I got engaged, his sister and I decided together to have him be the ring bearer, and that was like a year and half ago when he was a newborn. It was totally her decision to ask her sister in law to pick him up after dinner and I know she's really excited to a) have her son be part of a family wedding and b) party later with the grown-ups. Her sister in law Amy is a peach and loooves the kid just as much as we all do and I know she doesn't mind babysitting -- her and her fiance are cool people and that was why I wanted to invite them in for a refreshment during their long journey.

Thank you all for the good advice! I love @thisismynickname 's wording.

I'm still not a fan of having infants and toddlers as ring bearers and flower girls, partially for this reason-regardless of how much of a "peach" one is or how much one loves the kid.  All of one's wedding guests are supposed to be invited to the reception, including one's wedding party members.

peachy13

Jen4948 said:

peachy13 said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

When FI and I got engaged, his sister and I decided together to have him be the ring bearer, and that was like a year and half ago when he was a newborn. It was totally her decision to ask her sister in law to pick him up after dinner and I know she's really excited to a) have her son be part of a family wedding and b) party later with the grown-ups. Her sister in law Amy is a peach and loooves the kid just as much as we all do and I know she doesn't mind babysitting -- her and her fiance are cool people and that was why I wanted to invite them in for a refreshment during their long journey.

Thank you all for the good advice! I love @thisismynickname 's wording.

I'm still not a fan of having infants and toddlers as ring bearers and flower girls, partially for this reason-regardless of how much of a "peach" one is or how much one loves the kid.  All of one's wedding guests are supposed to be invited to the reception, including one's wedding party members.

He is invited though! I'm not kicking him out. 

Jen4948

peachy13 said:

Jen4948 said:

peachy13 said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

When FI and I got engaged, his sister and I decided together to have him be the ring bearer, and that was like a year and half ago when he was a newborn. It was totally her decision to ask her sister in law to pick him up after dinner and I know she's really excited to a) have her son be part of a family wedding and b) party later with the grown-ups. Her sister in law Amy is a peach and loooves the kid just as much as we all do and I know she doesn't mind babysitting -- her and her fiance are cool people and that was why I wanted to invite them in for a refreshment during their long journey.

Thank you all for the good advice! I love @thisismynickname 's wording.

I'm still not a fan of having infants and toddlers as ring bearers and flower girls, partially for this reason-regardless of how much of a "peach" one is or how much one loves the kid.  All of one's wedding guests are supposed to be invited to the reception, including one's wedding party members.

He is invited though! I'm not kicking him out. 

Okay, thanks for clarifying.  Like I said, I don't think you owe Amy and Tim hospitality, but it's a nice gesture.

theartistformerlyknownas

All I would be worried about is the venue noticing 2 extra headcount walking in and charging you the full open bar rate for both of them. If you're having a consumption bar you should be off the hook though.

TrixieJess

Jen4948 said:

peachy13 said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

When FI and I got engaged, his sister and I decided together to have him be the ring bearer, and that was like a year and half ago when he was a newborn. It was totally her decision to ask her sister in law to pick him up after dinner and I know she's really excited to a) have her son be part of a family wedding and b) party later with the grown-ups. Her sister in law Amy is a peach and loooves the kid just as much as we all do and I know she doesn't mind babysitting -- her and her fiance are cool people and that was why I wanted to invite them in for a refreshment during their long journey.

Thank you all for the good advice! I love @thisismynickname 's wording.

I'm still not a fan of having infants and toddlers as ring bearers and flower girls, partially for this reason-regardless of how much of a "peach" one is or how much one loves the kid.  All of one's wedding guests are supposed to be invited to the reception, including one's wedding party members.

From OP's wording, nephew is leaving after dinner, which means he's invited to the reception.

I went to tons of weddings as a child, some I stayed out all night for some my parents had my grandma pick me up. It's only been the past few years that I've noticed an uptick in "adults only" weddings. To each their own.

OP, you have been given good advice. Offer some cake and a drink. Everyone likes cake!

mrsdee15

I think it's a really nice gesture to offer them a drink and/or some cake.  PPs have good advice.

madamerwin

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

madamerwin

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

huskypuppy14

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

No. As long as the bride and groom are inviting the children to the whole reception; it is irrelevant what their parents want to do with them. if the bride and groom do not want the kids at the reception, then yes they shouldn't be in the ceremony.

Guests can choose to only go to the ceremony and not the reception. So this is no different, except the minors parents are making the decision. 

madamerwin

huskypuppy14 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

No. As long as the bride and groom are inviting the children to the whole reception; it is irrelevant what their parents want to do with them. if the bride and groom do not want the kids at the reception, then yes they shouldn't be in the ceremony.

Guests can choose to only go to the ceremony and not the reception. So this is no different, except the minors parents are making the decision. 

---BOXBOXBOX---

THIS. Thank you, you said it more concisely than I could.

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

TNDancer

The child is coming to the reception, and leaving after dinner, therefore receiving the thank you. I have been known to leave events early as well. There's no difference.

madamerwin

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Stuck in box

You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.

My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.

madamerwin

Jen4948 said: tfmrserwin said: tfmrserwin said: Jen4948 said:I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.
Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.


Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 
By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:
Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?
Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.
Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.
Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.


False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 
Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 
Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 
Stuck in box
You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.
My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.


---BOX---

As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Stuck in box

You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.

My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.

---BOX---

As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Excuse me, but I said nothing about telling the parents anything about what to do.  What fucking part of this don't you get?

I think you're trolling for the purpose of deliberately misreading my posts in order to find fault. Knock it off.

madamerwin

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Stuck in box

You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.

My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.

---BOX---

As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Excuse me, but I said nothing about telling the parents anything about what to do.  What fucking part of this don't you get?

I think you're trolling for the purpose of deliberately misreading my posts in order to find fault. Knock it off.


You're kidding, right? You are not making any sense... I'm sincerely trying to understand what the hell you are arguing. All I'm saying is that it's the parents' decision if they want their kid to leave after the ceremony. As long as you invite the kid to the whole thing, the parents get to decide when the kid leaves. That's it. You might not share that opinion, but still - it's fully up to the parents to decide if/when their kid leaves.

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Stuck in box

You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.

My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.

---BOX---

As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Excuse me, but I said nothing about telling the parents anything about what to do.  What fucking part of this don't you get?

I think you're trolling for the purpose of deliberately misreading my posts in order to find fault. Knock it off.


You're kidding, right? You are not making any sense... I'm sincerely trying to understand what the hell you are arguing. All I'm saying is that it's the parents' decision if they want their kid to leave after the ceremony. As long as you invite the kid to the whole thing, the parents get to decide when the kid leaves. That's it. You might not share that opinion, but still - it's fully up to the parents to decide if/when their kid leaves.

You are trying to argue that I've been opposing the idea that it's up to the parents whether or not their kids attend the reception.  I have never said differently and do not appreciate your telling me what is or isn't appropriate to "tell parents" in the matter.  I have never advocated "telling them to do" a fucking thing as regards whether or not their kids can attend the reception.  All along I have said that it is up to the parents.  I do not need you to tell me whether or not a couple should say anything to the parents, because I have never once argued that they should!

What I have been arguing about is whether or not small kids should attend the ceremony, let alone have parts in it-NOT the reception.  And my feeling is that if their parents don't want them to attend the reception, which should be respected, they shouldn't have roles in the ceremony.

All that said, I don't give a fuck whether or not you think it makes sense because you haven't been reading a single post I have made in this thread correctly, so of course it doesn't make sense to you.  If you actually take the fucking time to read what I actually wrote, then maybe you can make some apropos posts.  Till then, ta-ta.

madamerwin

Jen4948 said: tfmrserwin said: Jen4948 said: tfmrserwin said: Jen4948 said: tfmrserwin said: tfmrserwin said: Jen4948 said:I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.
Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.


Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 
By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:
Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?
Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.
Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.
Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.


False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 
Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 
Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 
Stuck in box
You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.
My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.


---BOX---
As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Excuse me, but I said nothing about telling the parents anything about what to do.  What fucking part of this don't you get?

I think you're trolling for the purpose of deliberately misreading my posts in order to find fault. Knock it off.


You're kidding, right? You are not making any sense... I'm sincerely trying to understand what the hell you are arguing. All I'm saying is that it's the parents' decision if they want their kid to leave after the ceremony. As long as you invite the kid to the whole thing, the parents get to decide when the kid leaves. That's it. You might not share that opinion, but still - it's fully up to the parents to decide if/when their kid leaves.

You are trying to argue that I've been opposing the idea that it's up to the parents whether or not their kids attend the reception.  I have never said differently and do not appreciate your telling me what is or isn't appropriate to "tell parents" in the matter.  I have never advocated "telling them to do" a fucking thing as regards whether or not their kids can attend the reception.  All along I have said that it is up to the parents.  I do not need you to tell me whether or not a couple should say anything to the parents, because I have never once argued that they should!What I have been arguing about is whether or not small kids should attend the ceremony, let alone have parts in it-NOT the reception.  And my feeling is that if their parents don't want them to attend the reception, WHICH SHOULD BE RESPECTED, they shouldn't have roles in the ceremony.

---BOX---

Whoa. I see I have struck a nerve. Clearly we disagree. But there's no need to yell and start calling troll on people just because they don't agree with you and think your logic is flawed. And yes, before you start yelling again, I do understand what you are saying. Pretty sure you are not understanding what I'm saying though, so I will stop wasting my time trying to explain.

Jen4948

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

tfmrserwin said:

tfmrserwin said:

Jen4948 said:

I guess this is a good reason why one should not have small children in one's ceremony who one or the children's parents don't want to attend the reception-someone has to babysit them later.

That said, if these people aren't actually being invited to your wedding, I don't see that you owe them hospitality, but cake and non-alcoholic drinks would be a nice gesture.

So, you're saying you shouldn't have small children present because the parents may not want them to stay for the whole reception? This makes no sense to me... If parents want to bring their kids to the entire reception, that's their prerogative (assuming the children were invited to the wedding to begin with). If they want to come sans kids, also their prerogative. If they want to bring the kids, and then arrange for childcare later in the night, again - their prerogative. It seems like a leap in logic to say that since some parents may not want their kids there for the whole reception, then you shouldn't invite them to be in the ceremony.

Both of our flower girls will be leaving our reception with their sitters when their parents see fit. Should I not have had my niece and goddaughter in my wedding because their parents will not want them to stay for the entire reception?

Well, a reception is a thank you to one's guests, including one's wedding party members, including small kids, for attending and participating in the wedding.  It seems to me that if a parent is not going to let their kid attend the reception, it doesn't make sense to have the kid at, let alone in, the ceremony.  And there is also a rule of etiquette that one does not invite guests only to the ceremony but not the reception.  So it's not a leap of logic at all-it's good etiquette.

Yes, it's up to the parents whether or not the kid participates and the couple should check with them first.  But if they say that they don't want the kid at the reception, then I think that they should not be at, let alone in, the ceremony.  I've maintained this position ever since joining this forum in a number of threads.

Etiquette-wise, there is nothing wrong with parents deciding that they want their kids to leave the reception, at, say, 8pm. Yes, if you (as the host) told parents they need to send their kids away, then that would be incorrect per etiquette. 

By your logic, this is how a conversation should go:

Me: Hi sister, I would love niece to be a flower girl in the wedding. Is that ok with you?

Sister: Of course, she would love that! On a side note, we will probably have babysitter come pick niece up at 8pm, since husband and I would like to be able to stay later without worrying about her bedtime.

Me: Oh, never mind. If she cannot stay for the whole reception, we don't think she should be in the wedding.

Just... How does that make any sense? Just because people are invited and/or IN the wedding does not mean they have to stay until the very end of the reception... What if a bridesmaid said she had to leave the reception early? Should I kick her out of the bridal party?

No, of course not.  But you're not getting my point, which is, if someone can't give themselves permission to attend the reception or get it from their parents/guardians/whoever is authorized to give it, it really doesn't make sense to me to have them in the wedding-because the reception is their thank-you, along with everyone else's, for being there. 

If a mentally competent adult chooses not to stay for the reception, that's certainly their right.  But your argument is not apropos, because adults can give themselves permission to stay or go.  Minors cannot.

False. Parents get to make decisions for their children, and if they want their children to leave at a certain time, that is the parents' prerogative, and the kids do not have to get a say. 

Seriously - my example above follows your logic exactly. You think I should tell my sister/niece "Nah, sorry - niece can't be in the wedding because you want to send her home to bed at 8pm. If she wants to be in the wedding, you have to let her choose what time she wants to leave the reception."? 

Kids don't get to make decisions for themselves all the time, that's part of life. 

My niece really IS in my wedding. She is really excited about it. You're basically advocating me telling her she cannot be in the wedding because her parents decided she has to go home and to bed at 8pm (and cannot stay until midnight like everyone else). That is ridiculous. 

Stuck in box

You are still missing the point.  I have never said that kids should not stay at wedding receptions if their parents don't want them to, so why the hell do you keep arguing this?  That is ridiculous.

My point is whether they should attend the ceremony if their parents don't want them to attend the reception.  And my opinion that if their parents do not want them to attend the reception, then they should not attend the ceremony, let alone have roles in it, stands.

---BOX---

As long as the kid is invited to the whole thing, it's the parents' choice as to what part(s) they attend, and you should not be telling the parents what to do. Even if that means that the parent decides that they want their kid at the ceremony but not the reception. You do not get to decide that. It's not your kid. 

Excuse me, but I said nothing about telling the parents anything about what to do.  What fucking part of this don't you get?

I think you're trolling for the purpose of deliberately misreading my posts in order to find fault. Knock it off.


You're kidding, right? You are not making any sense... I'm sincerely trying to understand what the hell you are arguing. All I'm saying is that it's the parents' decision if they want their kid to leave after the ceremony. As long as you invite the kid to the whole thing, the parents get to decide when the kid leaves. That's it. You might not share that opinion, but still - it's fully up to the parents to decide if/when their kid leaves.

You are trying to argue that I've been opposing the idea that it's up to the parents whether or not their kids attend the reception.  I have never said differently and do not appreciate your telling me what is or isn't appropriate to "tell parents" in the matter.  I have never advocated "telling them to do" a fucking thing as regards whether or not their kids can attend the reception.  All along I have said that it is up to the parents.  I do not need you to tell me whether or not a couple should say anything to the parents, because I have never once argued that they should!

What I have been arguing about is whether or not small kids should attend the ceremony, let alone have parts in it-NOT the reception.  And my feeling is that if their parents don't want them to attend the reception, WHICH SHOULD BE RESPECTED, they shouldn't have roles in the ceremony.

---BOX---

Whoa. I see I have struck a nerve. Clearly we disagree. But there's no need to yell and start calling troll on people just because they don't agree with you and think your logic is flawed. And yes, before you start yelling again, I do understand what you are saying. Pretty sure you are not understanding what I'm saying though, so I will stop wasting my time trying to explain.

I understand every damn word, and you are misinterpreting my posts.  You've done it so continuously, with each and every post, that that is why I think you are trolling.

You keep accusing me of suggesting that the couple should decide for the parents whether or not their kids should attend.  I have never at any time made that suggestion and have always said that it's strictly up to the parents.  But you have obtusely failed to perceive that.  I don't know why, and I think it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to you. 

You got one thing right: it's a waste of time trying to explain your point of view to me, because 1) I AGREE with you that it's up to the parents whether or not their kid should attend the reception and have never advocated telling them otherwise, and 2) you are so obtuse about my point of view that trying to explain anything to you is a waste of time because anything I have to say fails to be correctly processed by you.