I fully understand you and understand how disinviting people would appear rude (I’ve already said so and I don’t think I’ve even suggested that as a solution), however, I think it is at least possible that the scale of the problem is larger than you say and that it isn’t in fact a tiny minority - anecdotal accounts (including my own) here in the thread seems to support that view. Please don’t label me as ignorant; I do actually understand what you are saying (and have done so all along); I just disagree on some of the details.
It does your argument no good to descend into the absurd. Adults who are invited to come from out of state to a wedding, necessitating very likely an overnight stay, have responsibilities to their young children no matter WHAT the invitation says or doesn’t say. No one however has any responsibility to the friendly neighborhood wino.
It is an mistake to assume that simply because somebody has communicated “proper ettiquette” by writing it into a book, that people who expect “proper ettiquette” to be followed have no obligation to reiterate that information for the people they wish to follow it, preferably in advance.
The mere existence of a book does not mean communication has occurred. Communication, in clear and concise terms, from the person who wishes to be understood to the person who needs to understand, is required.
Or they can be gracious. As you were. claim to have been.
I’m wondering what the OP finally decided to do.
As someone who has attended weddings where the people who WERE suppossed to be talking were drowned out by a screaming child who Mommy and/or Daddy didn’t think to remove right away, I can totally understnad why some folks would want a kid-free wedding. Just like you wouldn’t bring a little kid to a movie rated PG or higher, bring a really small kid to a 20 minute to hour long event - and probably one where they’d be hot anyway since they’re usually held in the summer - just does NOT sound like a good idea. Put yourself in Junior’s place - would you have wanted to get all gussied up to sit through a boring (for you) ceremony for people you may or may not know at that age? Heck, how eager are yout odo that NOW? Do the kids a favor and leave them with a sitter.
Patty
P.S. The youngest person at my wedding was my then six-year-old nephew and ring-bearer. All younger kiddies were left with sitters without George and I having to ask for this.
I think Mangetout and I are coming from the same place here. The data available to me indicates that what you on the other side think is the ‘accepted’ means of communicating information is, in fact, being ignored for one reason or another and is not in practice as universally as seems to be believed here.
At GREAT personal risk* I called up one of my pals who was the groom in one of the weddings I previously mentioned. Invitation to Lady Chance and I, we brought Kate, bride and groom seemed not to mind and I feel certain that even if he was gracious about it there it would have gotten back to me fairly quickly if he’d complained about it even once inside our circle of friends.
I quote “Oh, no. We always expected the kids to come.”
*The personal risk here came from the fact that the groom here is also going to the wedding in question in the OP and there’s always the chance that it will get back to Chris that I’m bringing this up again even though it’s settled. I told Todd (my pal) the situation and I was pretty thoroughly mocked for discussing this on a message board. Here’s hoping his lips are sealed.
Except that you’re assuming that all people think the way you do. Still.
Look. You don’t have to say BUT NOT KATE. All you have to do is word it explicitly:
*Mr and Mrs So-and-so
and
Mr and Mrs Fulano
Have the pleasure to cordially invite you to the marriage of their children
John Doe
and
Jane Dho
Childcare will be provided to assist people in accommodating the wishes of the bride and groom for an adults-only ceremony.
(OR: Our sincerest apologies, but childcare could not be arranged for this adults-only ceremony.) *
I have a sneaking suspicion that “modern” ettiquette was developed for and by people wealthy enough to have at least one servant, maid or governess, so that the question of “Where in the world will we get a babysitter?” never came up.
You are certainly within your rights to take a stance that will inevitably mean people will fail to meet your expectations. Personally, I prefer to be more direct, and say what I mean myself rather than assuming it’s intuitive, or that people have been brought up with the same expectations I have.
issue here presented was “who is considered invited” My reply is “whoever is named, no one else”. apparently ya’ll wish to believe that it’s a better world when one should assume that the person addressing the envelopes was engaging in a sort of code, that “if you’re traveling more than 25 miles, this means such and such, and of course you know I actually mean your kids, too”.
Actually, adding in the info of small child traveling long distance, that might make it less likely for them to bring the child - long car trip + long service = very very long time for small child to be expected to sit still.
It boggles my mind that you say “communication in clear and concise terms” and yet an invitation naming specific names of those invited is apparently ‘unclear’ to you. astounding.
JC you’ve been here long enough to know that appeals to “I asked a bunch of my friends and they said” can be immediately countered with “oh yea, and I asked a bunch of mine and they said” too. SO, I’ll raise your group with mine, which includes my 57 year old never married soon to be hubby who immediately said “absolutely the kids were not included”.
and rather than suggesting that I’m being unclear with my “Mr and MRs.” means exactly that, I suggest that it’s your friends who are being unclear when they address something “Mr. & Mrs.” and yet mean “Mr and MRs. and baby Kate, too”.
I’m glad that you and your friends have come to an agreement.
have fun at the wedding.
Then they’ve got bigger problems than just finding a sitter for Snottums.
I just figured it out: You’re somehow related to the goat-felching twit who, upon find out our wedding was no-kids, felt quite free to not only bring her undisciplined hellions, but her neighbor’s 3 as well.
Nice hostility, Kat. Do you do carnivals?
I was arguing from the specific, wring. Follow me here.
I was told I should have known.
I argued that my experience differed from those here.
I was told that I’d misinterpreted my experiences.
I confirmed that my interpretation was correct.
Bang, in the specific I’m right.
And I still say that, whatever you may think is clear, it appears to be an interpretation on its way out.
I guess my reply would be that the fact that your personal experience was “X”, should not be extrapolated to being the norm, or expected, especially since your personal experience depends on everyone else specifically naming certain people while still meaning “this people plus those people” which, I submit to you, generally is not, and should not be, the 'expective normal position".
we can disagree on the proper way to hang toilet paper, but to suggest that one shoiuld assume that when people address an invitation in a specific manner, naming certain people, and failing to add inclusive language, that one should assume that the ‘intent’ is clearly to include the other not named person, is - well, illogical.
I also find it oddly amusing that the person arguing that ‘what is said is what was meant’ is the female of the equation, and the male is the one arguing “ignore what they said, you should know that they really mean something else entirely”. 
A great many things in human behavior are illogical. I think we’d all agree on that. Watching television, for example. Or eating fast food.
I’m not really arguing the system you’re purporting. Other than being irritated by some sideways slams here I’ve been more interested in the change that seems to be occuring. I agree that what you are asserting was at one point accepted by from where I sit we’re seeing a sea change (back to my volkerwanderung hypothesis) in behavior pattern here.
I’ve interpreted my contribution lately (and the response) to be.
Me: I think there’s a change occuring.
Others: No, common sense still rules.
Me: That’s not what the data available to me indicates.
And it’s not just my experience. Look at the folks on the other side. Katriona, Shayna, and others all had kids come to their weddings that weren’t wanted. I accept that. But doesn’t that support my assertion that the previous behavior pattern of the general acceptance of ‘no specific invitation means no kids’ is falling away? I think it does.
There’s a point at which being rude is overwhelmed by a new standard of behavior and those who stick to the old rules are on the outside of the behavior norm.
I’m not saying you’re at that point as I don’t want to be rude. What I am saying is that my experience, combined with other experiences mentioned here, indicate that what is now considered outside the norm (bringing non-specific invitees) is on its way to becoming the norm.
Get me? I’m all about the sociology. Peace, love and data analysis, that’s me.
This is just plain silly. I notice that your invitation follows the traditional formula perfectly—until the end, you where you tack a ridiculous notice that you won’t find in any etiquette book.
Do we have to add the line, “We graciously request that guests wear appropriate attire.”? (And let’s not even go into the problem of specifying what appropriate attire is.) If you invite a single person who does not in a long-term relationship, must you also add, “Also, we regret that we are unable to accomodate your date.”? How about, “Please do not drink to the point of incapacity at the reception.”?
After all, some people don’t know these rules of etiquette! If they are ignorant of them, and have not been duly informed in writing well in advance of the date, how could they possibly be expected to comply?
Eventually the invitation will run to multiple pages.
If a guest doesn’t understand that the invitation is issued to the person or persons named on the invitation, if they arrive in inappropriate attire, or if the make any other sort of ettiquette gaffe, well, of course hospitality dictates that everyone should be welcomed graciously and they shouldn’t be made to feel awkward. It’s too bad that the OP’s friend wasn’t as graceful as he could be in correcting the misapprehension.
But for heaven’s sake, a wedding invitation should not have to be an etiquette manual.
Frankly, that last one would be more helpful than anything we’ve discussed to this point. Far more weddings feature a drunk that EVER feature a screaming kid.
I agree that times change, norms change etc. But to declare that we should all now assume that the printed word doesn’t mean what it explicitly says is absurd.
and folks have been rude before, are rude now and continue to be so. We strive to not be so. (and once again, let me point out the absoliute bizarre concept that folks are claiming that explicit statements of who is invited is somehow ‘unclear’ and not specific enough).
I know you find it bizarre. But I think it’s pretty self-evident that it is unclear due to the number of people misinterpreting it. I can’t chalk all of them up to willful misunderstanding. I think it’s far more likely that most people who break the rule are simply misinterpreting. And doesn’t that mean it is, by nature, unclear?
Yo, Jonathan, I’m officially renouncing my stance that you should not have accepted the groom’s offer for his bride to find local childcare and that doing so was rude. I still contend that you should have allowed for the fact that they were extremely busy and wouldn’t necessarily have an immediate answer within your timeframe (one who accepts an offer of assistance is always at the mercy of the giver’s schedule in this regard). However, I just had a conversation with my husband, trying to see the other side and played the “what if” game regarding how we would have handled similar situations had they come up when we got married. You may not believe this, but after going back and forth about it for a while, I was the one who finally convinced my husband that if it meant one of our friends couldn’t have come otherwise, I would have gladly squeezed in the extra chore of finding a sitter for them, regardless of how insanely busy we were (though I still would have expected them to have some patience with me if it took me some time to accomplish it). So you have my apologies for calling you rude in that regard.
I don’t give a good goddamn about your ettiquette book. I do care very much about suiting my behavior to a specific, individual situation. I was invited to a wedding in the UK (flying from Washington state) which we could not politely refuse as it was very close family, which was stipulated “no children”. Yeah. Right. We weren’t to bring the (breastfed) kid? We could not accommodate the specifically stated wishes of the bride and groom. But we halfway did anyway by having me take the baby outside when she fussed. Shrug.
If it’s too much trouble to state expectations, then you should expect to be disappointed often by people with experiences and education different from yours, and to expect to have to be gracious about a lot of perfectly avoidable gaffes. I have no problem whatsoever making the invitation into an ettiquette manual if I want people to follow my expectations and not annoy me. What if the wedding were utterly casual or absolutely nontraditional, with everyone in wetsuits at the bottom of a lagoon or in Medieval costume? What if the reception were ‘no gifts please’? Wouldn’t you point those things out in the invitation? I know I would. Why must things turn into a ‘2 page long invitation’? Why do you keep taking the argument to the extreme, after I make a very small, gaffe-reducing adjustment to the “standard” wedding invitation?
Well, never mind. At least the OP got things sorted out.
or perhaps that your circle of friends are atypical, or that they’re being nice by not spelling out to you that they thought you were inconsiderate about bringing Kate etc.
again - your position is that words don’t really mean what they appear to mean. I think you need a whole hell ava lot more justification for that position than “that’s how my friends see it”.
How can you tell, then, that when children were at other weddings you attended that the bride and/or groom were not extremely unhappy that the uninvited guests were there? That they didn’t say so outwardly doesn’t mean they weren’t inwardly very upset that people ignored their wishes.
Ignoring the wishes of the host may be ‘becoming the norm’ but that doesn’t make it any less rude. For all you know, the hosts may have politely handled the unwanted guests, not been necessarily happy to see uninvited children there.
Just saw this and have to correct you. We did not, in fact, have any unwanted children at our wedding. Every single person we invited understood who was meant to be included and, by omission, excluded. That is why when my cousin got their invitation addressed to Mr. & Mrs. Jill’s Cousin/ Master Jill’s Nephew & Miss Jill’s Neice, they called me and said, “But what about Infant Jill’s Neice?”, as it was clear to them she was not to be brought. So I’m sorry, but no one we knew misunderstood our invitations.
Given my thesis here the happiness of the B&G at these events is irrelevant (not that I think their overall happiness isn’t important…just that for my specific line of reasoning it is).
When I say this custom is being ignored I largely mean by the invitees. A mass movement towards ‘informality’ or ‘misinterpretation’ clearly means that those doing the interpreting and the ones making the moves, not those making the invitations. Rude today, perhaps you’re right, but rude tomorrow? Not if this identified trend becomes large scale (and from the complaining here I’d say it’s on its way!).
As for the ‘maybe the B&G were thinking of pig roasting the kids’ line of reasoning it would be just as valid to say they were thinking ‘whew! I’m desperately happy kids were here’. The point there being that we’ll never know. They were pleased (on the surface) to see the kids there and that’s the evidence we have (other than one friend who confirmed that kids were welcome even though not specifically invited). Given the data at hand one has to take it at its face value rather than make interpretations that have no behavioral evidence behind them.