# Damn wedding weenie! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 25, 2004, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937 "2004-04-25T18:04:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Kalhoun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/3bc359/32.png) [@Kalhoun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kalhoun)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/181 "2004-04-28T21:26:12Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > It is pedantic IMO to assume that a)Named invitees (word?) explicitly excludes kids and b) that they would understand this. Kids are a very, almost ‘goes without saying’ part of the family. > I am not saying it is wrong (To me weddings and kids go hand in hand) just that it is pedantic to have to include ‘and family’. If kids are included, “& Family” will appear on the invitation. Only people named on the invitation are invited. I’ve heard horror stories of people who bring their kids along when they weren’t specifically invited. It can ruin a formal wedding. Get a babysitter! Although, for a 6 hr. trip, I would have hoped the bride or groom would have made arrangements for someone near the festivities. But they didn’t, so it’s your responsibility. Sorry. The bride and groom are right on this one. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/182 "2004-04-28T21:56:09Z")
> [@wring](#): > > It was you who made an assumption about what was meant, rather than anyone else, so I find it odd that at this late point you’re suggesting that people be direct. How much more direct can this be: “we request the honor of (yourname) and (your spouses name) at our wedding”? not: “we request the honor of (yourname) and (yourspouses name) (and implication of your kids, pets, grandma who’s visiting, mailman who had nothing better to do that day) at our wedding” Well, apparently a lot of folks think that the kids are implied whenever both parents are invited to a wedding. Why might that be? Hmm… let’s think… could it be because 90% of all weddings don’t have a no-child rule? Could it be because weddings arte family affairs, and thus, one brings the littler members of the family? Could it be because often children are overlooked in other forms of correspondence, and must be assumed included? And don’t direct this at me… I’m not the invitee… I made no assumptions. I’m saying this: Expecting people NOT to bring young children simply because the child’s name isn’t on the invite is unclear, indirect, and just asking for folks to show up with children in tow. As Mangetout said… not only are some folks unaware of this invitation rule, they’re unaware that there’s a gap in their knowledge. To minimize the chance of such an occurrence, it would be smart, despite what the manners-mavens say, to include with the invitation a notification that children are NOT expected. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/183 "2004-04-28T22:05:11Z")
> [@Kalhoun](#): > > I’ve heard horror stories of people who bring their kids along when they weren’t specifically invited. It can ruin a formal wedding. Either: -In every case, these horror stories were the result of people understanding that the kids were not invited, but consciously deciding to flout that understanding or -In some cases, it was a misundertanding and what appears self-evident to those in the know (that no invitations are in fact implied), is not actually always as blindingly obvious to others not well-versed in etiquette. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/184 "2004-04-28T22:56:14Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, apparently a lot of folks think that the kids are implied whenever both parents are invited to a wedding. Why might that be? Hmm… let’s think… could it be because 90% of all weddings don’t have a no-child rule? Could it be because weddings arte family affairs, and thus, one brings the littler members of the family? Could it be because often children are overlooked in other forms of correspondence, and must be assumed included? It’s entirely possible that 90% of weddings don’t have a no child rule, maybe even more. But I’d be willing to bet that way more than 10% of weddings exclude some children. Do you think most brides and grooms want to invite children they have never met? Most of the weddings I’ve been to include co-workers of the bride and groom or their parents as guests. ---
**Author:** ![DoctorJ](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doctorj/32/2904_2.png) [@DoctorJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DoctorJ)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/185 "2004-04-28T23:04:41Z")
The other big problem with stating “no children” on the invitation–it implies that the invitee can bring whoever, as long as they don’t bring any children. Thus, Susie would think it was OK to bring the man of two weeks, Bob and Sally could have their uninvited nineteen-year-old daughter tag along…it implies a level of informality on the guest list that could be disastrous to a formal wedding (or even a lot of informal ones). Stating on the envelope exactly who is invited is the only way to be completely clear, if only there were some way to make sure everyone understands it. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/186 "2004-04-28T23:05:04Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > -In some cases, it was a misundertanding and what appears self-evident to those in the know (that no invitations are in fact implied), is not actually always as blindingly obvious to others not well-versed in etiquette. I just don’t get this. This really has less to do with etiquette and everything to do with common sense. One doesn’t have to be familiar with Emily Post to figure out that the people who are invited are the _only_ people who are expected to show up. I don’t know a single, solitary person whose default assumption is that their children are always expected to be in tow when they’re invited somewhere. Not one. I wasn’t raised that way (my parents certainly didn’t take us with them everywhere they went) and anyone who wasn’t raised in a barn should be able to look at an invitation and see “Person A” and “Person B” are invited to attend and understand exactly what that means. It means _exactly_ what it says – nothing more, nothing less. How can communication _get_ any simpler than _that_? Common. Sense. And yeah, peace to you, too, **Sauron**. Disagreement is how it will have to stand, then. Too bad. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/187 "2004-04-28T23:16:33Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > anyone who wasn’t raised in a barn should be able to look at an invitation and see “Person A” and “Person B” are invited to attend and understand exactly what that means. It means _exactly_ what it says – nothing more, nothing less. How can communication _get_ any simpler than _that_? > > Common. Sense. If it really was as blindingly obvious as that, people wouldn’t keep getting it wrong, would they? Unless they are getting it wrong on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/188 "2004-04-28T23:18:33Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, apparently a lot of folks think that the kids are implied whenever both parents are invited to a wedding. Why might that be? Hmm… let’s think… could it be because 90% of all weddings don’t have a no-child rule? Could it be because weddings arte family affairs, and thus, one brings the littler members of the family? Could it be because often children are overlooked in other forms of correspondence, and must be assumed included? > > And don’t direct this at me… I’m not the invitee… I made no assumptions. I’m saying this: > > Expecting people NOT to bring young children simply because the child’s name isn’t on the invite is unclear, indirect, and just asking for folks to show up with children in tow. As Mangetout said… not only are some folks unaware of this invitation rule, they’re unaware that there’s a gap in their knowledge. > > To minimize the chance of such an occurrence, it would be smart, despite what the manners-mavens say, to include with the invitation a notification that children are NOT expected. do you have a source for your “90%” or was that pulled out of your ass? People misunderstand? yes, that can happen. However, who has responsability here? The wedding planners state specifically who is invited. The guests made an assumption. I shouldn’t have to attempt to figure out how various people may misunderstand a perfectly specificly addressed piece of mail. a birthday party invitation to your child - you assume that all your children are invited? you and your spouse as well? An invitation to the hot tub party at your neighbors addressed to you and spouse, you assume your kids are invited, too? you expect your children to pony up for bills addressed to you (obviously the bank erred in not including them as well). things can indeed be addressed to “the Smith family” at an address and then it’s clear the item is inclusive. you keep asserting that since weddings are ‘family occasions’ and so on, generally accepted rules go out the window. Generally speaking, mail is intended for the addressee. not a tough concept. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/189 "2004-04-28T23:18:34Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > 90% of all weddings don’t have a no-child rule? Welcome to the Straight Dope, where we don’t make shit up out of whole cloth to try to bolster our arguments. If you have a cite for that, please present it, otherwise you can _assume_ (love that word) that you’re completely wrong and that, oh, I dunno, lemme make up something like, say, 85% of all weddings are adults only events. > [@](#): > > Could it be because weddings arte family affairs, and thus, one brings the littler members of the family? Could it be that you’re making stuff up again? > [@](#): > > Could it be because often children are overlooked in other forms of correspondence, and must be assumed included? _Must_ be assumed? Must be _assumed_? Because sometimes stupid people don’t do _other_ types of invitations correctly (for which there is also no evidence)? Absolutely none of this makes any sense. You keep demanding explicit communication. I submit that “‘Person A’ and ‘Person B’ are cordially invited” _is_ explicitly clear. Only a boob would _assume_ anything other than what is specifically written. ---
**Author:** ![Shayna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/shayna/32/17976_2.png) [@Shayna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shayna)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/190 "2004-04-28T23:25:52Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > If it really was as blindingly obvious as that, people wouldn’t keep getting it wrong, would they? Unless they are getting it wrong on purpose. You might find yourself amazed at how many people _do_ “get it wrong on purpose.” There are selfish people all over the place and when those selfish people get invited somewhere, they bring their children whether the host wants them there or not. I’m not kidding. It really does happen. And for those to whom it’s not blindingly obvious, it’s not because they don’t understand etiquette, it’s because they’re just plain not _using_ their common sense. “‘Person A’ and ‘Person B’ are cordially invited…” That is as blindingly unambiguous as it is possible to get. ---
**Author:** ![Elza\_B](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Elza\_B](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Elza_B)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/191 "2004-04-28T23:29:21Z")
> [@Shayna](#): > > You might find yourself amazed at how many people _do_ “get it wrong on purpose.” There are selfish people all over the place and when those selfish people get invited somewhere, they bring their children whether the host wants them there or not. I’m not kidding. It really does happen. > > And for those to whom it’s not blindingly obvious, it’s not because they don’t understand etiquette, it’s because they’re just plain not _using_ their common sense. > > “‘Person A’ and ‘Person B’ are cordially invited…” > > That is as blindingly unambiguous as it is possible to get. Check out various wedding boards and you will see a TON of posts from brides where someone they invited has _repeatedly_ asked if they can bring their child. And it’s been heard through the grapevine and gotten back to the bride that MANY of these parents simply say “We’ll take Junior anyway! How dare she not invite MY child!”. It happens a LOT. It’s as if they’re offended that someone dares not include their precious little darling in every SINGLE thing. Ava ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/192 "2004-04-28T23:30:31Z")
I think it is a lot more subtel than that; for young parents, the transition from ‘us’=couple to ‘us’=family is a seamless one - I think it is all too easy for parents, especially new parents, to look at an invitation and simply think “oh, they’ve invited ‘us’”. For the record, I can’t remember attending any weddings where children were not invited; I also can’t remember the wording of the invitations. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/193 "2004-04-28T23:39:55Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > I think it is a lot more subtel than that; for young parents, the transition from ‘us’=couple to ‘us’=family is a seamless one - I think it is all too easy for parents, especially new parents, to look at an invitation and simply think “oh, they’ve invited ‘us’”. > > For the record, I can’t remember attending any weddings where children were not invited; I also can’t remember the wording of the invitations. And as I mentioned, the last three weddings I’ve attended prior to this one contained invitations to Lady Chance and myself and had kids there with no worries. So in my sample, at least, the rule is running 3-1 against the ‘rules of ettiquette’. And I love being told I was raised in a barn. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/194 "2004-04-28T23:47:26Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > And as I mentioned, the last three weddings I’ve attended prior to this one contained invitations to Lady Chance and myself and had kids there with no worries. So in my sample, at least, the rule is running 3-1 against the ‘rules of ettiquette’. > > And I love being told I was raised in a barn. and for the record, when I sent out my invites, it was addressed directly to the parents. There was a child at my wedding, I had **not** planned on having kids, was rather taken aback at the audacity, but chose to not make a scene by saying anything. So, I wouldn’t assume that since you did indeed see kids there meant that the bride/groom were all ok with or intended there to be children present. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/195 "2004-04-28T23:57:28Z")
> [@wring](#): > > and for the record, when I sent out my invites, it was addressed directly to the parents. There was a child at my wedding, I had **not** planned on having kids, was rather taken aback at the audacity. You’re sure it was _audacity_? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/196 "2004-04-28T23:59:18Z")
Well, in at least two of the cases (one of which I was in) the bride and groom made clear to me, at the wedding, that they were welcome. Maybe they were just gracious. But it seemed genuine at the time. And these are certainly folks that, had they complained afterwards, it would have gotten back to me fairly quickly. We’re a talkative bunch. Alternatively, from a logic standpoint, if three weddings out of three (again in my limited sample) featured many kids (and I mean more than 10…but my friends tend to be at that stage) when they weren’t invited seems to me to imply that, whatever your cries of outrage the rules is either. A) Not as universally known as you say or B) A large percentage of parents with kids at these weddings all elected to be rude in the same way. I think the simplest explanation is that the rule of excluded kids is NOT universally relied upon (at least in my circle). ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/197 "2004-04-29T00:09:01Z")
again - when in doubt, either _ask_ as you did, or rely on publications dedicated to the subject. There’s all sorts of etiquette rule books available for folks to find out ‘generally accepted’ protocal for circumstances they’re not familiar with. (and I never said anything nasty to anyone about the kid at my wedding. But no, I did not expect it). seems to me that a very simple way to insure that I mean ‘and kids’ is to either specify their names, or simply address it to “the Chance family”, why on earth bother to specifically address it to “Mr. & Mrs. Jonathan Chance” if I wanted the entire crew? When something is specific, I would think it’s incumbant upon those wishing to believe that it means something **other** than what it exactly says, and I’ve not heard yet any particularly compelling reason to believe that typically, when sending out invitations, one **intends** others not specifically named. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/198 "2004-04-29T00:18:20Z")
> [@wring](#): > > again - when in doubt, either _ask_ as you did, or rely on publications dedicated to the subject. There’s all sorts of etiquette rule books available for folks to find out ‘generally accepted’ protocal for circumstances they’re not familiar with. It is possible (as I have been saying) to be unaware of the etiquette, but _not to be in doubt_ - to be unaware that there is a gap in your knowledge, in which case, how would you set about finding out? ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/199 "2004-04-29T00:19:07Z")
Nor am I saying that. What I **am** saying is that available data (to me) indicates that the rule is not as lock solidly followed as you (and others) seem to be saying, _by either side_ of the equation. Therefore I have evidence that, regardless of what soi-disant ‘ettiquette experts’ claim, the rule is ‘in play’. At least in the mid-atlantic among couples being married in their 20s to 30s. I can’t say with any certainty that my evidence applies outside of that cohort. And, having looked up the last invitations…ALL were addressed to either myself or the myself and Lady Chance. On the one just addressed to me I apparently committed the astonishing faux pas of bringing my wife to an event to which she wasn’t invited…though it would have been strange because the invitation came from a mutual friend she’s known longer than I. Call me silly. This is a rule that appears (again, from here) made to be broken. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2004, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937/200 "2004-04-29T00:22:45Z")
But this has just turned into verbal tennis now; there’s nothing new being said on either side; on the one hand we have: “If I meant to invite children, I would specifically mention them, everybody should know and understand that without it being explained” and on the other hand we have “Not everybody understands formal etiquette, or is even aware that their knowledge is lacking” One thing everyone seems to agree on is that _people sometimes turn up to weddings with children in tow, when the hosts did not desire or intend it_ - how can this happen? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/damn-wedding-weenie/241937.md?page=11)