No Kids?

NYCBruin · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

Jen4948 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

Because if someone else was told, "I'm sorry, Barbara, the invitation was just for you and Paul, we hope you can still make it," they have to find a sitter for Teddy, and they see that Suzie has brought her kids, that's going to clue them in that someone else's kids were invited while theirs were not-and that could indeed lead people to feel resentful, whether the reason they were told not to bring Teddy is because there was a no-kids rule or not.

NYCBruin · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

Because if someone else was told, "I'm sorry, Barbara, the invitation was just for you and Paul, we hope you can still make it," they have to find a sitter for Teddy, and they see that Suzie has brought her kids, that's going to clue them in that someone else's kids were invited while theirs were not-and that could indeed lead people to feel resentful, whether the reason they were told not to bring Teddy is because there was a no-kids rule or not.

Of course people might be upset. Just like some people get upset about the fact that their children weren't invited at all (even if no one's were). But from an etiquette standpoint, the faux pas is on the guest for assuming that just because their snowflake wasn't invited that no one's was or should be.

southernbelle0915 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

Because if someone else was told, "I'm sorry, Barbara, the invitation was just for you and Paul, we hope you can still make it," they have to find a sitter for Teddy, and they see that Suzie has brought her kids, that's going to clue them in that someone else's kids were invited while theirs were not-and that could indeed lead people to feel resentful, whether the reason they were told not to bring Teddy is because there was a no-kids rule or not.

Of course people might be upset. Just like some people get upset about the fact that their children weren't invited at all (even if no one's were). But from an etiquette standpoint, the faux pas is on the guest for assuming that just because their snowflake wasn't invited that no one's was or should be.

I agree with this.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

^ This. I'm not inviting everyone's kids to my wedding either, but I'm certainly not telling people exactly who I am inviting and who I am not.

I think rational people can figure out why a newborn infant who is nursing might be invited, while their toddler was not. And if they can't be rational and choose to get pissed because their child wasn't invited, it's not really my problem and not something I would personally worry about. It's not truly rude like splitting up social units, having a head table, having a cash bar, etc.

SP29 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Of course people might be upset. Just like some people get upset about the fact that their children weren't invited at all (even if no one's were). But from an etiquette standpoint, the faux pas is on the guest for assuming that just because their snowflake wasn't invited that no one's was or should be.

^ This. Is it up to the B&G to invite who they please. They can choose to invite one child or 50. Or none at all. Just like they can choose to invite one set of aunt/uncle but not the other 3. Will those not invited get huffy? Possibly, but wouldn't be due to any etiquette faux pas on the B&G's part.

If you do not wish to invite the infant (which is fully within your right), be prepared that the cousin will decline the invitation.

huskypuppy14 · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves? Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about. People do find out, and they do get pissed off. To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something? To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.

You still haven't answered my question of why people would know that there was a "no kids" rule in the first place.

Suzie RSVPs with her little darlings. You call up and say "Hi Suzie, so sorry for the confusion, the invitation was just for you and your SO. We hope you can still make it"

How does someone get from that conversation that there is a "no kids rule"? Just like I'm not inviting everyone's neighbor or cousin or parents, I'm not inviting everyone's children. I'm not having children (with a few exceptions) but I'm not advertising that. Just like I'm not advertising who is on the guest list in general.

Because if someone else was told, "I'm sorry, Barbara, the invitation was just for you and Paul, we hope you can still make it," they have to find a sitter for Teddy, and they see that Suzie has brought her kids, that's going to clue them in that someone else's kids were invited while theirs were not-and that could indeed lead people to feel resentful, whether the reason they were told not to bring Teddy is because there was a no-kids rule or not.

That's their problem then. We are inviting some children, but not all children of all of our guests. As long as we don't split up families, it's fine. Just because a couple is invited, doesn't mean their children are. But it also doesn't mean the bride and groom are having an adult only wedding. We are inviting family children, but we are not inviting any children of our friends except for 1 person, but he is in the wedding party.

crunchymamaof2 · November 2013

Jenn, many of us think you absolutely do not think kids belong at weddings from your many previous posts. You've stated how loud and disruptive they are, how dirty and smelly they are, and how they will ruin the other guests' experience. And repeatedly referring to a child as "it" is borderline offensive. Look, if you don't like kids/don't feel kids belong at weddings that's fine. But the way you come across is much different than that simple preference.

This thread has also gotten way out of control. To assume this woman is stupid and unable to correctly care for her baby is way off base. We have no clue in what context she talked about bringing the baby. She could have said "Congrats on getting married. I fully expect to get an invite for us and the baby." or she could have said it more like "I'm so excited for your wedding! I'm hoping the family will get to meet the baby!" She was rude to assume the baby would automatically be invited. No denying that. But that does not mean she's stupid and too dumb to properly care for her child. That IS jumping to conclusions, in a big way.

The answer to the OPs question is actually very simple. You are well within your rights (and etiquette) to invite some children and not others, as long as you don't split up a family. You and your FH need to decide if you want kids, or which kids you're okay with. If you feel okay inviting the baby then do it! Just make sure you don't tell people this is an adult only wedding. If they're kids aren't on the invite then they aren't invited. You might have to remind some of that when you get RSVP cards back, but it's not wrong to pick and choose, just like you do with adults.

I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

delujm0 · November 2013

this thread has gotten completely out of control.

OP, you haven't sent invitations yet, so this isn't a pressing concern. You may want to consider that this cousin will have a newborn at the time of your wedding, and that if you don't invite the newborn, she may not attend. How important to you and your FI is the cousin's attendance at the wedding? If you feel strongly that you want her to be there, it would make sense to make a concession so that she can bring the baby. If you don't care whether she comes or not, don't invite the baby.

For the record, we are having a mostly adults-only wedding. The exception is our nephew who will be 8 months old at the time. FI's sister and BIL are both in the wedding, and are coming to it from out of town, and to be honest, we couldn't imagine not having our nephew at our wedding. We also told two couples who will have newborns that if they need to bring them that they can do so - one of the fathers is in the wedding party. I understand that many breastfeeding moms don't feel comfortable leaving their newborns for that amount of time, and that the need to pump wihle at a semi-formal event is unplesant. However, both of these couples said there was no way they wanted the babies there. One couple is going to drop the baby off with her grandparents on the way to the wedding, and the other is going to get a friend who lives nearby to stay in the hotel room with the baby during the reception - the mom will swing into the hotel (across the street from venue) to breastfeed during the cocktail hour, and then she expects to be fine for the rest of the night. We desperately wanted these friends to be able to make it to the wedding, so we made exceptions.

So i think that's the bottom line: how badly do you want this woman at your wedding? proceed from there.

aurianna · November 2013

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

Jen4948 · November 2013

aurianna said:

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

The problem with this is, adults invited to weddings are presumed to have the intelligence to understand that it's inappropriate for them to make excessive noise or otherwise behave disruptively during the ceremony, and if they can't control themselves, they need to remove themselves. Babies don't have that intelligence, so that's why they're often not invited in the first place.

NYCBruin · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

The problem with this is, adults invited to weddings are presumed to have the intelligence to understand that it's inappropriate for them to make excessive noise or otherwise behave disruptively during the ceremony, and if they can't control themselves, they need to remove themselves. Babies don't have that intelligence, so that's why they're often not invited in the first place.

True, but their adult parents should be afforded the same assumption of intelligence.

You wouldn't tell your guests "if you have a coughing fit, please step out of the church" or "please don't speak during the ceremony" no matter what their past behavior was. Telling someone that they need to "take their crying child" out is just as rude.

If you're going to presume that adults are smart enough to not do rude things during a ceremony, that includes removing unruly children.

Bottom line, there may be an interruption during your ceremony whether you invite children or not and there really isn't anything you can do to prevent it without being rude.

Jen4948 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

The problem with this is, adults invited to weddings are presumed to have the intelligence to understand that it's inappropriate for them to make excessive noise or otherwise behave disruptively during the ceremony, and if they can't control themselves, they need to remove themselves. Babies don't have that intelligence, so that's why they're often not invited in the first place.

True, but their adult parents should be afforded the same assumption of intelligence.

You wouldn't tell your guests "if you have a coughing fit, please step out of the church" or "please don't speak during the ceremony" no matter what their past behavior was. Telling someone that they need to "take their crying child" out is just as rude.

If you're going to presume that adults are smart enough to not do rude things during a ceremony, that includes removing unruly children.

Bottom line, there may be an interruption during your ceremony whether you invite children or not and there really isn't anything you can do to prevent it without being rude.

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

NYCBruin · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

The problem with this is, adults invited to weddings are presumed to have the intelligence to understand that it's inappropriate for them to make excessive noise or otherwise behave disruptively during the ceremony, and if they can't control themselves, they need to remove themselves. Babies don't have that intelligence, so that's why they're often not invited in the first place.

True, but their adult parents should be afforded the same assumption of intelligence.

You wouldn't tell your guests "if you have a coughing fit, please step out of the church" or "please don't speak during the ceremony" no matter what their past behavior was. Telling someone that they need to "take their crying child" out is just as rude.

If you're going to presume that adults are smart enough to not do rude things during a ceremony, that includes removing unruly children.

Bottom line, there may be an interruption during your ceremony whether you invite children or not and there really isn't anything you can do to prevent it without being rude.

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Jen4948 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

acove2006 said:
I do have to say if you don't want babies or kids there simply due to the fact that they may disrupt the ceremony, I'd reconsider. Someone could start hacking and not get up and excuse themselves. People can talk loudly amongst themselves. Hell someone could fart! Don't not invite based on possible "what ifs." Invite based on who you want to share your marriage vows with and know that anything can happen. Pray it doesn't, but don't let those thoughts consume you. Good luck!

That's a very good point. At my husband's cousin's wedding ceremony, as the justice of the peace (a woman with short hair, glasses, and a judge robe) walked down the aisle, one of my husband's cousins said very loudly "She looks like Harry Potter!!" He was 25 at the time and possessed all his mental faculties.
At my own wedding, my grandmother, who isn't used to long Catholic weddings kept bugging my step-mom "Are they married yet? Well hair! This is the longest wedding I've ever been to!"

You can't control everything or everyone. So definitely make your guest list about who you want to celebrate with and what kind of overall experience you want.

The problem with this is, adults invited to weddings are presumed to have the intelligence to understand that it's inappropriate for them to make excessive noise or otherwise behave disruptively during the ceremony, and if they can't control themselves, they need to remove themselves. Babies don't have that intelligence, so that's why they're often not invited in the first place.

True, but their adult parents should be afforded the same assumption of intelligence.

You wouldn't tell your guests "if you have a coughing fit, please step out of the church" or "please don't speak during the ceremony" no matter what their past behavior was. Telling someone that they need to "take their crying child" out is just as rude.

If you're going to presume that adults are smart enough to not do rude things during a ceremony, that includes removing unruly children.

Bottom line, there may be an interruption during your ceremony whether you invite children or not and there really isn't anything you can do to prevent it without being rude.

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

Jen4948 · November 2013

bubbles053009 said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

What if the couple doesn't have a coordinator or such? Either way, what you have suggested is just as rude as the woman assuming her baby is invited.

It is not. Allowing someone to just have her baby cry is rude. Asking them to take it outside, if they don't do it voluntarily, isn't rude at all. It's seeing to the needs of everyone else.

Jen4948 · November 2013

scribe95 said:

There is far too much thought going on in this thread about what if's . I mean don't you guys have real wedding problems to solve? Every place I have ever been with a crying baby - restaurant, movie theater, church - the parents with the child get the evil eye from every person around them! No need to proactively plan to deal with this. Shit happens in life. Move on.

Because it's not your place to decide what a "real problem" is. The OP thinks it's a real problem and was entitled to ask for opinions from everyone-not just you.

annathy03 · November 2013

delujm0 said:

this thread has gotten completely out of control.

OP, you haven't sent invitations yet, so this isn't a pressing concern. You may want to consider that this cousin will have a newborn at the time of your wedding, and that if you don't invite the newborn, she may not attend. How important to you and your FI is the cousin's attendance at the wedding? If you feel strongly that you want her to be there, it would make sense to make a concession so that she can bring the baby. If you don't care whether she comes or not, don't invite the baby.

For the record, we are having a mostly adults-only wedding. The exception is our nephew who will be 8 months old at the time. FI's sister and BIL are both in the wedding, and are coming to it from out of town, and to be honest, we couldn't imagine not having our nephew at our wedding. We also told two couples who will have newborns that if they need to bring them that they can do so - one of the fathers is in the wedding party. I understand that many breastfeeding moms don't feel comfortable leaving their newborns for that amount of time, and that the need to pump wihle at a semi-formal event is unplesant. However, both of these couples said there was no way they wanted the babies there. One couple is going to drop the baby off with her grandparents on the way to the wedding, and the other is going to get a friend who lives nearby to stay in the hotel room with the baby during the reception - the mom will swing into the hotel (across the street from venue) to breastfeed during the cocktail hour, and then she expects to be fine for the rest of the night. We desperately wanted these friends to be able to make it to the wedding, so we made exceptions.

So i think that's the bottom line: how badly do you want this woman at your wedding? proceed from there.

We are doing this as well. The only under 18 guest will be my niece, who will be 6 months old and the daugher of my MOH/Sister who lives 2000 miles away. It is crucial to me that my sister be able to attend, so she gets the "exception". It is not critical to us that our cousins/friends with children attend, so while we would love to have them there, if they can't attend without their kids then they can't attend. And we're not advertising who is and isn't invited, so if someone is offended their snowflake isn't invited while the MOHs daughter is then that is their problem.

CLI242009 · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

bubbles053009 said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

What if the couple doesn't have a coordinator or such? Either way, what you have suggested is just as rude as the woman assuming her baby is invited.

It is not. Allowing someone to just have her baby cry is rude. Asking them to take it outside, if they don't do it voluntarily, isn't rude at all. It's seeing to the needs of everyone else.

I agree with this. I have been in a movie theater where a baby is crying it's head off and after attempting to quiet the child or calm the baby down they do not leave. The crying is still going on. I have been to a wedding ceremony with a crying baby. I have been to church with crying babies. Not sure if it's all churches but our church, there's an echo, so that is not fun. When the child is not consolable it's time to go in the bathroom or out in the hall or something to calm it down. You are disrupting the event that is going on and some times pissing people off too.

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

NYCBruin · November 2013

CLI242009 said:

Jen4948 said:

bubbles053009 said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

What if the couple doesn't have a coordinator or such? Either way, what you have suggested is just as rude as the woman assuming her baby is invited.

It is not. Allowing someone to just have her baby cry is rude. Asking them to take it outside, if they don't do it voluntarily, isn't rude at all. It's seeing to the needs of everyone else.

I agree with this. I have been in a movie theater where a baby is crying it's head off and after attempting to quiet the child or calm the baby down they do not leave. The crying is still going on. I have been to a wedding ceremony with a crying baby. I have been to church with crying babies. Not sure if it's all churches but our church, there's an echo, so that is not fun. When the child is not consolable it's time to go in the bathroom or out in the hall or something to calm it down. You are disrupting the event that is going on and some times pissing people off too.

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

CLI242009 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

CLI242009 said:

Jen4948 said:

bubbles053009 said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

What if the couple doesn't have a coordinator or such? Either way, what you have suggested is just as rude as the woman assuming her baby is invited.

It is not. Allowing someone to just have her baby cry is rude. Asking them to take it outside, if they don't do it voluntarily, isn't rude at all. It's seeing to the needs of everyone else.

I agree with this. I have been in a movie theater where a baby is crying it's head off and after attempting to quiet the child or calm the baby down they do not leave. The crying is still going on. I have been to a wedding ceremony with a crying baby. I have been to church with crying babies. Not sure if it's all churches but our church, there's an echo, so that is not fun. When the child is not consolable it's time to go in the bathroom or out in the hall or something to calm it down. You are disrupting the event that is going on and some times pissing people off too.

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

Coughing fit/sneezing you can't really control. I know a crying baby you can't control either, but you the parents can do something about it.

An usher? Employee, depending on the location of the ceremony? Another relative? I know my FI's family would tell the person to please get the baby out. I've seen them do it in church.

People are going to get upset about the no children thing. It's up to OP to decide if she wants the person there that badly and if there are guests who get mad when they see she allowed a baby to come but not anyone else, is she okay with handling the guests that will be mad.

My FI and I are allowing two exceptions. His niece and nephew. They are in our bridal party. That is it. No other children. Majority is mad at us but we are sticking to what we would want.

NYCBruin · November 2013

CLI242009 said:

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

Coughing fit/sneezing you can't really control. I know a crying baby you can't control either, but you the parents can do something about it.

An usher? Employee, depending on the location of the ceremony? Another relative? I know my FI's family would tell the person to please get the baby out. I've seen them do it in church.

People are going to get upset about the no children thing. It's up to OP to decide if she wants the person there that badly and if there are guests who get mad when they see she allowed a baby to come but not anyone else, is she okay with handling the guests that will be mad.

My FI and I are allowing two exceptions. His niece and nephew. They are in our bridal party. That is it. No other children. Majority is mad at us but we are sticking to what we would want.

Yes, but the thing you can do about a crying baby (step outside) you can ALSO do if you're having a coughing fit. I guess I just don't see the distinction. I'm having a child-free wedding and have nothing against them, I just think people get a bit crazy about kids sometimes. Yes, they can do distracting things, but so can any other guest! I would hope most people are polite enough to step outside if they or their child are causing a distraction. If not, there really isn't anything you can do about it. Maybe someone will say something to them, maybe not, but planning to have employees/relatives/whoever go all gestapo on a guest whose baby makes a fuss but not on Aunt Sally whose a bit older and has a wheezing fit seems a bit...wrong.

Jen4948 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

CLI242009 said:

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

Coughing fit/sneezing you can't really control. I know a crying baby you can't control either, but you the parents can do something about it.

An usher? Employee, depending on the location of the ceremony? Another relative? I know my FI's family would tell the person to please get the baby out. I've seen them do it in church.

People are going to get upset about the no children thing. It's up to OP to decide if she wants the person there that badly and if there are guests who get mad when they see she allowed a baby to come but not anyone else, is she okay with handling the guests that will be mad.

My FI and I are allowing two exceptions. His niece and nephew. They are in our bridal party. That is it. No other children. Majority is mad at us but we are sticking to what we would want.

Yes, but the thing you can do about a crying baby (step outside) you can ALSO do if you're having a coughing fit. I guess I just don't see the distinction. I'm having a child-free wedding and have nothing against them, I just think people get a bit crazy about kids sometimes. Yes, they can do distracting things, but so can any other guest! I would hope most people are polite enough to step outside if they or their child are causing a distraction. If not, there really isn't anything you can do about it. Maybe someone will say something to them, maybe not, but planning to have employees/relatives/whoever go all gestapo on a guest whose baby makes a fuss but not on Aunt Sally whose a bit older and has a wheezing fit seems a bit...wrong.

What you can do about it is asking them to leave...the same way ushers ask people to leave who are making noise in the movies. It is not wrong or rude to ask the parents of crying babies to remove them, let alone "Gestapo."

NYCBruin · November 2013

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

CLI242009 said:

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

Coughing fit/sneezing you can't really control. I know a crying baby you can't control either, but you the parents can do something about it.

An usher? Employee, depending on the location of the ceremony? Another relative? I know my FI's family would tell the person to please get the baby out. I've seen them do it in church.

People are going to get upset about the no children thing. It's up to OP to decide if she wants the person there that badly and if there are guests who get mad when they see she allowed a baby to come but not anyone else, is she okay with handling the guests that will be mad.

My FI and I are allowing two exceptions. His niece and nephew. They are in our bridal party. That is it. No other children. Majority is mad at us but we are sticking to what we would want.

Yes, but the thing you can do about a crying baby (step outside) you can ALSO do if you're having a coughing fit. I guess I just don't see the distinction. I'm having a child-free wedding and have nothing against them, I just think people get a bit crazy about kids sometimes. Yes, they can do distracting things, but so can any other guest! I would hope most people are polite enough to step outside if they or their child are causing a distraction. If not, there really isn't anything you can do about it. Maybe someone will say something to them, maybe not, but planning to have employees/relatives/whoever go all gestapo on a guest whose baby makes a fuss but not on Aunt Sally whose a bit older and has a wheezing fit seems a bit...wrong.

What you can do about it is asking them to leave...the same way ushers ask people to leave who are making noise in the movies. It is not wrong or rude to ask the parents of crying babies to remove them, let alone "Gestapo."

I see no problem if you're going to have a policy where ANY guest who is causing a distraction/making noise is asked to leave, but it becomes rude if you only single out certain guests.

Jen4948 · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

CLI242009 said:

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

Coughing fit/sneezing you can't really control. I know a crying baby you can't control either, but you the parents can do something about it.

An usher? Employee, depending on the location of the ceremony? Another relative? I know my FI's family would tell the person to please get the baby out. I've seen them do it in church.

People are going to get upset about the no children thing. It's up to OP to decide if she wants the person there that badly and if there are guests who get mad when they see she allowed a baby to come but not anyone else, is she okay with handling the guests that will be mad.

My FI and I are allowing two exceptions. His niece and nephew. They are in our bridal party. That is it. No other children. Majority is mad at us but we are sticking to what we would want.

Yes, but the thing you can do about a crying baby (step outside) you can ALSO do if you're having a coughing fit. I guess I just don't see the distinction. I'm having a child-free wedding and have nothing against them, I just think people get a bit crazy about kids sometimes. Yes, they can do distracting things, but so can any other guest! I would hope most people are polite enough to step outside if they or their child are causing a distraction. If not, there really isn't anything you can do about it. Maybe someone will say something to them, maybe not, but planning to have employees/relatives/whoever go all gestapo on a guest whose baby makes a fuss but not on Aunt Sally whose a bit older and has a wheezing fit seems a bit...wrong.

What you can do about it is asking them to leave...the same way ushers ask people to leave who are making noise in the movies. It is not wrong or rude to ask the parents of crying babies to remove them, let alone "Gestapo."

I see no problem if you're going to have a policy where ANY guest who is causing a distraction/making noise is asked to leave, but it becomes rude if you only single out certain guests.

Fair enough.

PrettyGirlLost · November 2013

NYCBruin said:

CLI242009 said:

Jen4948 said:

bubbles053009 said:

Jen4948 said:

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

I wouldn't in advance. But if anyone, child or adult, is disrupting the ceremony, they and/or their parents need to be told to put a stop to it immediately, because if they don't, nobody will be able to hear the ceremony. SImply letting the disruptive behavior go on without addressing it is incredibly rude to the couple and everyone else who did not come to listen to a crying baby or other disruptive behavior.

Just out of curiosity, how would this work?

Because I'm picturing a bride running down the aisle to shun a parent for not taking her crying child out. And the mental image is amazing.

Someone else, like a coordinator, does it-not the couple.

What if the couple doesn't have a coordinator or such? Either way, what you have suggested is just as rude as the woman assuming her baby is invited.

It is not. Allowing someone to just have her baby cry is rude. Asking them to take it outside, if they don't do it voluntarily, isn't rude at all. It's seeing to the needs of everyone else.

I agree with this. I have been in a movie theater where a baby is crying it's head off and after attempting to quiet the child or calm the baby down they do not leave. The crying is still going on. I have been to a wedding ceremony with a crying baby. I have been to church with crying babies. Not sure if it's all churches but our church, there's an echo, so that is not fun. When the child is not consolable it's time to go in the bathroom or out in the hall or something to calm it down. You are disrupting the event that is going on and some times pissing people off too.

I am with Jen, allowing a baby to just sit there and cry or a toddler have a tantrum/whine over and over again is really rude for those who are trying to enjoy whatever event it is. Coughing fits or sneezing that is something you can not control and I wouldn't hold that against anyone. When it comes to a child, yes I am with Jen. Ask the parent to step out with the child to calm her/him down.

I'm not disagreeing that it's rude of someone with a crying baby to not step out.

But why is someone having a coughing fit who doesn't leave any different from a crying baby? Both are disturbing/distracting.

And again, I pose the question, who is supposed to inform these rude people to leave?

The DOC, the church coordinator, an usher, any other guest with common sense and courtesy. If a person is letting their child have a fit for a prolonged period of time without having the sense to get up and leave, I don't think it's really rude at that point for someone to politely ask that they step out.

aurianna · November 2013

PrettyGirlLost said:

The DOC, the church coordinator, an usher, any other guest with common sense and courtesy. If a person is letting their child have a fit for a prolonged period of time without having the sense to get up and leave, I don't think it's really rude at that point for someone to politely ask that they step out.

See, I don't think this is unreasonable either. What I think is incredibly rude, is preemptively telling the mother that her baby can come but only if she does X, Y, and Z. This was the "compromise" that was suggested, when really it's just a rude way of telling your guest how to behave.

If you're at the wedding and the mother really is being rude and letting her spawn wail uncontrollably, then maybe saying something to her isn't uncalled for. But before the wedding, giving her demands/parental instructions/criticism/whatever that reflect your assumption that not only will her child misbehave, but that she also won't know how to care for him in a polite way, is rude. So even if she was rude assuming he was invited, two wrongs don't make a right and it is not right to be rude right back.
The two options are tell her in the most polite way possible that her child is not invited. Or to graciously invite the child, no strings attached; perhaps request the coordinator try to stop any disruptions, but do not single out this woman.
The compromise of telling her she can bring her kid but then telling her what to do with him is doodie.

CLI242009 · November 2013

That's the only thing I didn't agree with either, telling her beforehand. That to me is the rude part & comes across as "you're too stupid to know better", but that is just me.

bubbles053009 - I've worked retail as well and I vouch for what you said. The screaming kids @.@ but I have also worked in a movie theater. Totally different when a child is screaming in the middle of a movie theater vs. a retail store. More annoying in the retail store but when it's a movie...that is just on a different spectrum.

From my experience, a child screaming in the stores - the mother usually gets looks or people just walk away. I look and make sure the child isn't being hurt or something like that, when I notice it's just a tantrum I walk away and get away from the area the child is in aka get away from the noise. Not bothered by it.

A movie theater - when I am paying $10-$18 to sit in one spot and watch a movie for entertainment and I can't hear what is being said or what is going on because a child is crying it's head off - I get annoyed as all hell.

I have been an employee where I have had to go into the theater and tell the parent "Sir/Miss if you can't keep the baby calm we're going to have to ask you to leave." It is not fun because some of them do get pissed off. We've given them refunds and everything, we want them to come back, we just don't want other people getting pissed off because they can't enjoy the movie.

PrettyGirlLost - The DOC, the church coordinator, an usher, any other guest with common sense and courtesy. I love you haha

pabride56 · March 2014

So how did it end up?

Thankfully, it's now only 5 months until the wedding, so it looks like we won't have the issue of newborns/infants.

ashley8918 · March 2014

Jen4948 said:

karamekler said:

I agree they do get noticed if they are crying during a ceremony, I also feel as if we do not go along with this that we will get a lot of backlash from his family. It is tough

Yeah, that is tough. I sympathize.

By way of compromise, you could bend the "adults-only" rule for her, but insist that if the baby cries or is otherwise disruptive in any way, s/he must be removed immediately-the cousin and her SO cannot simply sit there and ignore it. This is obviously what any parent of a disruptive child at a wedding should do, but I think that someone who simply assumes without confirmation that their baby is invited even when you haven't so indicated needs to have this reinforced.

No no no no. Do not say this to her. That's so insulting.
As said, it's obvious to most parents that this is what should be done, so to demand this of her to her face and act like she needs special instruction to do so, is demeaning.

This is how this conversation will come off:

"Dear welcome guest: I don't want people's brats at my wedding. However I am going to be super magnanimous and praise worthy, and grant you the special privilege of allowing your spawn at my event.
HOWEVER there is a list of demands you must follow. I am sure your child will be ill-behaved and dare to scream on MY day. I am also sure that you will be too stupid, rude, or both, to remove it (because seriously, why would a mother bother to care for her crying infant when she could just sit there and watch me in my white gown being beautiful?).
Be warned, if you do not follow my demands you will be punished. I'm not sure by who, because it's not like I'm going to stomp down the aisle in the middle of the ceremony to shun you (assuming I even notice the crying). But you'll be sorry!!"

Jen4948 usually gives good advice, but not this.

Not inviting the kid at all is not rude.
Inviting the kid, but attaching a list of demands / some sort of ultimatum, is totally rude.

ETA:
While it's somewhat rude to just assume your baby will be invited, if she's in a circle that usually invites kids, and she's wrapped up in the baby haze, it's an understandable, though incorrect, assumption. Just because she made it doesn't mean she's some uncouth villain that plans to have her baby cry and then leave its dirty diapers all around the venue.

I agree. I think that telling a soon to be new mother how to parent her child is incredibly rude, no matter what the situation.

No Kids?

Re: No Kids?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards