Want adult only reception, that means leaving out some 1st cousins

photokitty · January 2016

I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships.

I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin.

I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.

banana468 · January 2016

photokitty said:
I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships.

I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin.

I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.

Good point.

However you still shouldn't cite a budget as the reason to have an adults only event and then have kids in the wedding. IMO, if you're going to start to figure out ways to save then figure it out in a way that's more equitable for the guests.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2016

banana468 said:

photokitty said:
I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships.

I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin.

I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.
Good point.

However you still shouldn't cite a budget as the reason to have an adults only event and then have kids in the wedding. IMO, if you're going to start to figure out ways to save then figure it out in a way that's more equitable for the guests.

Exactly. It's disingenuous to claim to have an Adult Only wedding and then have kids in your wedding party. . .and that smacks of using those kids as props for pictures.

aurianna · January 2016

PrettyGirlLost said:

I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships. I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin. I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.
Good point. However you still shouldn't cite a budget as the reason to have an adults only event and then have kids in the wedding. IMO, if you're going to start to figure out ways to save then figure it out in a way that's more equitable for the guests.
Exactly. It's disingenuous to claim to have an Adult Only wedding and then have kids in your wedding party. . .and that smacks of using those kids as props for pictures.

I disagree a bit.
One would hope that kids in the wedding party are kids you are close to. Perhaps they are your siblings kids or kids you've babysat and spent a lot of time with.

If those are the only kids a couple is close to and they want to cut out all other kids because they don't have relationships with them and it would help with the budget... why is that not a valid choice?

We had adults only. And sure, it was partly for budget. We wanted an elegant, smaller wedding.
Could we have found a different venue and invited everyone's kids? Sure. But we didn't want to do that.

My husband has 36 first cousins. The ones he grew up with, he was close to. So we invited them. The minor first cousins, or the kids of the first cousins, he barely knew... so we didn't invite them.

I was close to my 20 year old cousin. I wasn't close to his 14-year old half-brother. We didn't want to pay $100 for a kid that I'd met six times and never had a conversation with.
The drawback was that it upset my uncle. But I still don't think we did anything wrong.

So, we couldn't afford to host all the kids at the venue we'd chosen (or fit them in the space). I don't think that means we planned backwards.
We planned to the guest list we wanted and to the type of wedding we wanted.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2016

aurianna said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships. I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin. I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.
Good point. However you still shouldn't cite a budget as the reason to have an adults only event and then have kids in the wedding. IMO, if you're going to start to figure out ways to save then figure it out in a way that's more equitable for the guests.
Exactly. It's disingenuous to claim to have an Adult Only wedding and then have kids in your wedding party. . .and that smacks of using those kids as props for pictures.

I disagree a bit.
One would hope that kids in the wedding party are kids you are close to. Perhaps they are your siblings kids or kids you've babysat and spent a lot of time with.

If those are the only kids a couple is close to and they want to cut out all other kids because they don't have relationships with them and it would help with the budget... why is that not a valid choice? It is a valid choice, but at the same time that *is not* an Adult Only wedding. That's my point. If there's a child at a wedding, you can't claim it's Adult Only. . . because it's not. It's 99.9% Adult.

We had adults only. And sure, it was partly for budget. We wanted an elegant, smaller wedding.
Could we have found a different venue and invited everyone's kids? Sure. But we didn't want to do that.

My husband has 36 first cousins. The ones he grew up with, he was close to. So we invited them. The minor first cousins, or the kids of the first cousins, he barely knew... so we didn't invite them. You invited in circles, which works best and is what most of us have been suggesting.

I was close to my 20 year old cousin. I wasn't close to his 14-year old half-brother. We didn't want to pay $100 for a kid that I'd met six times and never had a conversation with.
The drawback was that it upset my uncle. But I still don't think we did anything wrong. Oops, nevermind. You *didn't* invite in circles, and hence there was drama. That example right there is why I think inviting in circles works best, rather than arbitrary cut offs, such as adult only.

Sure you didn't do anything against etiquette per se, but your Uncle didn't see it that way and didn't care about etiquette technicalities, and by splitting his family you offended him. That's why as far as invites go, I personally advise to invite in circles and I don't push these etiquette technicalities, since in the real world of family dynamics, politics, human feelings, and drama no one in practice really accepts a technicality as a valid rationalization; Actions have consequences, despite people thinking they are in the right.

So I'm giving my advice from the POV of trying to keep drama at a minimum and using common sense. Posters are free to accept that arbitrary cutoffs are likely to cause drama, and then it's on them to willingly deal with or not deal with the fallout.

So, we couldn't afford to host all the kids at the venue we'd chosen (or fit them in the space). I don't think that means we planned backwards.
We planned to the guest list we wanted and to the type of wedding we wanted.

southernbelle0915 · January 2016

OP only gave the one example She didn't say "this is the ONLY situation and omg inviting this 16 year old is going to financially ruin us!!!!!" Because yea, that would be poor planning and pretty ridiculous.

I'm gathering that she just wants to know generally "Is this scenario ok or not?" The etiquette answer is yes since it's technically not splitting families since the one person is an 18 year old adult. But the practical answer is, invite neither or both because family dynamics, keeping the peace and common sense.

PrettyGirlLost · January 2016

southernbelle0915 said:

OP only gave the one example She didn't say "this is the ONLY situation and omg inviting this 16 year old is going to financially ruin us!!!!!" Because yea, that would be poor planning and pretty ridiculous. I'm gathering that she just wants to know generally "Is this scenario ok or not?" The etiquette answer is yes since it's technically not splitting families since the one person is an 18 year old adult. But the practical answer is, invite neither or both because family dynamics, keeping the peace and common sense.

Practical! That's the word I've been searching for, thanks!

photokitty · January 2016

PrettyGirlLost said:

banana468 said:

photokitty said:
I come from a very large, very close family. There are 27 cousins. One of them got married. 5 were over 18 and invited, the rest of us under 18 and not invited. Myself and one other cousin were in high school. My parents told us it was adults only, and I asked why some of the cousins got to go then, and she reminded me they were adults and I was not. I was a little bummed, and to this day still wish I could have been there, but we are still very close and it didn't hurt any relationships.

I offer this bc op only mentions one family, and we're all assuming it's just 2 more people, but it could be 22, like it was for my cousin.

I will say my cousin did not have a flower girl or ring barer. If they had, assuming they weren't their own children or their neice or nephew (they didn't have any) my feelings may have been hurt.
Good point.

However you still shouldn't cite a budget as the reason to have an adults only event and then have kids in the wedding. IMO, if you're going to start to figure out ways to save then figure it out in a way that's more equitable for the guests.
Exactly. It's disingenuous to claim to have an Adult Only wedding and then have kids in your wedding party. . .and that smacks of using those kids as props for pictures.

I agree. Unless the kids are the couple's own children. Still isn't an adult only wedding, but I think the couple's kids are always their own circle.

If my cousin chose not to invite the 22 of us due to budget or otherwise, I don't know. They did give a reason and my parents never asked, bc that would be rude. Again they didn't have any kids present, so it is completely different.

aurianna · January 2016

So the problem people have with kids in the wedding party being the only kids there is only if the couple claims they wanted an adult-only wedding?
If the couple only has the kids in their wedding party they are close to, invites no other kids, but doesn't say boo about why, are people ok with that? Or are the WP kids still just props for pictures? Is it better to say "I want a wedding with very few children; just the ones I'm the closest to"?

I really think it's totally possible to only be close to a couple of kids, want to honor them in the wedding party, but not want a bunch of other kids running around the whole night (and paying for them) if you aren't close to them.

More on inviting in circles vs age cut-off...

This will just sound like I'm trying to justify my wedding, which I know I don't need to because I think our decisions were fine. Just flipsiding the coin a bit:

Again with my own wedding, my uncle got upset when we didn't invite his 14 year old son (though he said nothing about his 17 year old step-daughter not being invited either).
So some say right there that's a reason we should have invited in circles instead of having an age limit.
But if the age limit almost completely correlates with how close your are to that cousin? And is there a point where catering to the "circle" becomes unreasonable?

As far as first cousins go, we invited the 4 adults on my side and excluded the 2 minors. I had no relationship with those 2, whereas I had a strong relationship with 3 of the adults.
On hubby's side 8 of his first cousins were minors. He didn't have much of a relationship with any of them but was pretty close to a lot of his adult cousins.
If we'd had room (which we didn't) should we have caved and invited 10 more people we weren't close to (and spent $1000+ to do so) just because they happened to share the same common ancestor with us? Should we have not invited the adult first cousins and stopped our "circle" at aunt/uncles despite our being very close to many of our adult first cousins?

We wanted an elegant wedding. My mom who was paying wanted an elegant wedding. I'd been to family weddings with some of the kids in question... they tended to hog the dance floor, interrupted adult conversations and one of them even spent a lot of the night at my BiL's wedding bugging the bartender. No great offenses (not monster children to be sure)... but just annoying to me personally and not what I wanted at my wedding.
Should we have completely changed the type of wedding we wanted in order to invite 10 people we weren't close to because they happened to share a common ancestor with us?

Also, at least one person here has already expressed that it would have been a tougher pill to swallow as a child/teen not being invited to a wedding if some children (even just wedding party children) had been invited than if it was purely adults-only. If we'd stuck to the circle and invited the 10 first cousin children, that might have opened the door for first cousins with children being upset that their children weren't invited. We could have used the "circle defense", but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have still been upset seeing 10 kids running around knowing their own weren't invited. In this case we thought no children would upset less people than just first-cousin children would have.

In the end, children are not entitled to go everywhere their parents go. So I had an uncle who was upset that his youngest son wasn't allowed to go to an adult event. Did that make things uncomfortable for a bit? Yes. But was that alone worth having to find an entire new venue or spend another grand or potentially hurt even more people's feelings? I don't think so... especially when those big compromises would have had to be made to what... make room for 10 people we weren't close to and didn't want at our wedding anyway??

Inviting in circles often limits drama. That still doesn't mean it's the universal best plan in every case for every family. (But OP, in the end it still might be the best choice for you. Only you can weigh every element).

holyguacamole79 · January 2016

We had a bunch of kids at our wedding (and DH & I don't have kids ... yet), so take this for what it's worth ....

H's and my rule of thumb when inviting non-family* kids was this: If the kids know us by name, then we invited the kids. Several of my high school friends have kids who call me "Aunt Guac". They were absolutely invited. We invited some of my dad's colleagues (mostly out of obligation, but I knew them rather well). I may have met their kids once or twice, and we didn't invite them. No big deal.

*If the kids were family, they were invited. End of discussion. H and I both come from families where this would've been very problematic, and we both love his cousins (I don't have children cousins on my side).

My brother, sister, & I are each 2.5 years apart in age. Had a relative invited me and not my siblings because of an arbitrary age cutoff, my family likely would've declined.

glasgowtolondon · January 2016

We are only inviting our nieces and nephews (all under 4), no cousins or friends children. That being said I 100% agree that inviting in circles is the way to go here. In this situation I would definitely not split a family. It's been done to me (albeit as an adult) by one of my cousins - mum, dad, brother/sil all invited but not me. Of course I know logically that I was not entitled to be invited but I can't say it didn't hurt. Like others have said, make the best decision for you/FI, but know and accept the potential concequences. I'd say much less hassle to invite both or none - as a teenager I can promise you I'd have had a much better night with an empty house than at your wedding!

PrettyGirlLost · January 2016

aurianna said:

So the problem people have with kids in the wedding party being the only kids there is only if the couple claims they wanted an adult-only wedding? You have it kinda backwards. I have a problem with the OP, or anyone in similar situation, labeling her wedding as Adult Only and using that as a rationalization to split a family when her wedding is *not* an Adult Only event by simple virtue of the fact that she is having children in her bridal party.

I have no issue with inviting in circles and only inviting some children and not others- I did it myself. DH has a large extended family and had we used Adults Only as a cut off we would have ended up splitting up several of his cousins' families since there were multiple situations were most of the siblings in the family were 18+ but several were 15-17.

So beyond our nieces and nephews and our 1st cousins, we didn't invite any other children, which meant no co workers's kids, no friends' kids. And we didn't label the wedding Adult Only or anything.

If the couple only has the kids in their wedding party they are close to, invites no other kids, but doesn't say boo about why, are people ok with that? Personally? Nope, not if the couple still ends up splitting up a family by inviting 3 out of 4 members of that family. I don't care the ages involved, that seems silly to me and likely to cause butthurt. And I don't care about the righteousness of the couple based on etiquette or how the guests aren't entitled to their butthurt. . . I prefer to avoid all possible butthurt when possible. Or are the WP kids still just props for pictures? Is it better to say "I want a wedding with very few children; just the ones I'm the closest to"?

I really think it's totally possible to only be close to a couple of kids, want to honor them in the wedding party, but not want a bunch of other kids running around the whole night (and paying for them) if you aren't close to them. Absolutely, I agree! And I believe that can be done pretty easily without splitting up families, which to me comes off as rude.

More on inviting in circles vs age cut-off...

This will just sound like I'm trying to justify my wedding, which I know I don't need to because I think our decisions were fine. Just flipsiding the coin a bit:

Again with my own wedding, my uncle got upset when we didn't invite his 14 year old son (though he said nothing about his 17 year old step-daughter not being invited either).
So some say right there that's a reason we should have invited in circles instead of having an age limit.
But if the age limit almost completely correlates with how close your are to that cousin? And is there a point where catering to the "circle" becomes unreasonable? Almost completely and completely are not the same thing, as you experienced, and because of that there was drama. It's up to you whether or not the drama was worth causing or not. Look, we tell ppl all the time they have to invite the SO's of guests, even if they have never met them, so logically to me that's no different than inviting cousins you might not be close to if that means you are not splitting up a family. Yes, I know kids and SO's and social units are different things, but personally I don't care- again to me these are all technicalities ppl use to justify or rationalize sketchy situations they already know are sketchy and likely to cause drama.

As far as first cousins go, we invited the 4 adults on my side and excluded the 2 minors. I had no relationship with those 2, whereas I had a strong relationship with 3 of the adults.
On hubby's side 8 of his first cousins were minors. He didn't have much of a relationship with any of them but was pretty close to a lot of his adult cousins.
If we'd had room (which we didn't) should we have caved and invited 10 more people we weren't close to (and spent $1000+ to do so) just because they happened to share the same common ancestor with us? Should we have not invited the adult first cousins and stopped our "circle" at aunt/uncles despite our being very close to many of our adult first cousins?

Personally, I would have either budgeted to include those other cousins or I wouldn't have invited any of those cousins and only invited the aunts and uncles, as that's a "harder" boundary of circles.

We wanted an elegant wedding. My mom who was paying wanted an elegant wedding. I'd been to family weddings with some of the kids in question... they tended to hog the dance floor, interrupted adult conversations and one of them even spent a lot of the night at my BiL's wedding bugging the bartender. No great offenses (not monster children to be sure)... but just annoying to me personally and not what I wanted at my wedding.
Should we have completely changed the type of wedding we wanted in order to invite 10 people we weren't close to because they happened to share a common ancestor with us?

Meh, I think these sorts of things are pretty minor and inconsequential to worry about in the grand scheme of hosting a kick ass party, and I say this as I person who has had similar experiences with annoying kids at other weddings.

Also, at least one person here has already expressed that it would have been a tougher pill to swallow as a child/teen not being invited to a wedding if some children (even just wedding party children) had been invited than if it was purely adults-only. If we'd stuck to the circle and invited the 10 first cousin children, that might have opened the door for first cousins with children being upset that their children weren't invited. We could have used the "circle defense", but that doesn't mean they wouldn't have still been upset seeing 10 kids running around knowing their own weren't invited. In this case we thought no children would upset less people than just first-cousin children would have. 1st cousins, regardless of age, is one circle. The children of 1st cousins is a completely different and secondary circle.

Sure, in your case it could have caused butthurt, but Adults Only had the same effect for you. No one said inviting in circles was foolproof, it's just that it's likely to cause less butthurt. Amount of butthurt varies for each couple and is greatly dependent on individual family dynamics. And each couple has to decide for themselves how much butthurt they are willing to incur.

In the end, children are not entitled to go everywhere their parents go. So I had an uncle who was upset that his youngest son wasn't allowed to go to an adult event. Did that make things uncomfortable for a bit? Yes. But was that alone worth having to find an entire new venue or spend another grand or potentially hurt even more people's feelings? I don't think so... especially when those big compromises would have had to be made to what... make room for 10 people we weren't close to and didn't want at our wedding anyway?? Like I said, how much butthurt you're willing to accept and deal with is up to you.

Inviting in circles often limits drama. That still doesn't mean it's the universal best plan in every case for every family. (But OP, in the end it still might be the best choice for you. Only you can weigh every element). I agree with you here 100%

SP29 · January 2016

Agree with @PrettyGirlLost

The issue posters (and myself) take is when the B&G try to rationalize their decisions with arbitrary rules, which often put them into awkward situations (such as the cut off of 18 leads to splitting up cousins), leading to more rationalizing. I am all for inviting the guests you want, and not inviting the guests you don't. In your example @aurianna, instead of saying "cut off is 18, so sorry 16 year old cousin Jenny (who I would normally be quite pleased to invite), you're out, because otherwise I have to invite the annoying brat child of other cousin", just don't invite annoying brat child (baring the family rule).

100% fine to have an adult only wedding. 100% fine to invite some kids and not others (as long as you aren't splitting up a family). If the B&G want to only invite 2 children they are close to, and not invite anyone else's kids, that's fine.

I do agree that just because two (or more) people are related does not mean that the two (or more) always need to be invited together. But as said, this is up to the hosts to figure out how much drama it will create and are they willing to handle it.

I have 3 first cousins on my mom's side (+ SOs). Initially I considered only inviting one of the 3, because I'm not close with the others, but in the end, I decided to invite all of them. It kept the "circle", it is only 2 more guests (+SOs) and prevented any possible drama, as I do still see my other cousins from time to time, and I am close with my aunt and uncle (their parents). On the opposite side, when my friend's mom got re-married, she had a guest list of 50, and only invited 2 of her many first cousins, because they are the only 2 she has talked to or seen in 15 years. I would have done the same in her case.

Want adult only reception, that means leaving out some 1st cousins

Re: Want adult only reception, that means leaving out some 1st cousins

Choose Another Board

Search Boards