so now you’re not only justifying rude behavior, you’re applauding the increase of it?
that people are polite in the face of rude behavior really shouldn’t be taken as a tacit acceptance and welcoming gesture of rude behavior.
really, it shouldn’t.
I’ve only just come back to this thread and was surprised to see the debate still raging. Even though I thought everyone knew the basic rules of etiquette it has become blatantly obvious this is not the case. The most obvious answer then, as people have already stated, is to follow up the invitation with a phone call to clear up any misunderstanding where children are involved. I do like Chotti’s invitation, leaves absolutely no room for misinterpretation.
I was also amazed by the number of people who stated most of the weddings they have attended have included children. I have been to at least a couple of dozen weddings in my time and there has not been one occasion where children were invited, other than those in the wedding party or immediate family members.
And I submit that anyone, especially family, who would not make an exception in a case such as yours, is an oaf. If my cousin had been travelling overseas and was nursing, you can damn well count on the fact that she would have been allowed to bring her baby, even if no one else was. No one should be that inflexible. In that case, the person who breached etiquette was the bride who didn’t include your child, not you, who had to bring her regardless.
But that has nothing to do with the fact that her exclusion of your child, or her specific mention of “no children” was completely clear to you. We’re not discussing the “no children” rule here, we’re discussing whether or not it’s clear whether or not children are supposed to be included based on how the envelope is addressed.
The odd thing was that it was pointed out to us FIRMLY that the wedding was ‘no children’ and only relented when we indicated that our other choice would be not to come - and we were . I felt uncomfortable.
I don’t pay much attention to what the outside envelope says. Even the inside envelope may be done by rote, hand-written by a third party unfamiliar with individual situations, and not by the bride and groom themselves. What the invitation itself says is everything. Because you never know. Sometimes it may stipulate non-traditional things like ‘Please wear kilts’ to a Scottish-themed wedding, which would hardly be written on the envelope! In the case of children, in my experience, their attendence is not ‘non-traditional’. Apparently I’ve been to a lot of weddings where people were book-rude and nobody noticed, because nobody gave it a second thought. But in that case, were they really rude? Or just following their own set of rules? And isn’t this really okay?
But that’s the thing, how do you know how any other guest was addressed at those weddings? You certainly weren’t privvy to everyone else’s envelopes to peruse. For all you know, all the weddings you went to were child-friendly on purpose and each child there was specifically invited to attend, in which case, no, they weren’t rude at all if they were invited!
If they’re making up their own rules to follow and not abiding by what’s specifically written, then no, it’s not really ok… unless they’ve cleared it with the hosts in advance.
I wonder if I might enquire how many of those arguing here actually have children of their own? Can I get a show of hands please?
The reason that I ask is that, as a parent, I know what it is like to work with a daily, habitual assumption that nearly every activity involving both myself and by wife, will include the children too, unless the explicit decision is made to exclude them; an example:
It’s late Friday night and my wife says “Shall we go to the cinema tomorrow?” - I will assume that she is talking about a daytime performance of a film with a censor certificate suitable for our kids, and that ‘we’ means the whole family. If it were not so, she would have said “Shall I try to get a babysitter tomorrow night, so that we can go to the cinema, just the two of us”.
Probably in excess of 99% of our lives are organised this way; young children are a huge preoccupation and the overwhelming majority of activities that involve both of us as parents, will also implicitly include the kids unless deliberate, conscious steps are taken to the contrary. The concept that ‘we’ means all four of us is deeply ingrained in my psyche - even when we discuss and plan activities where we only mentiion the two of us (I’d like to go out for pizza, what would you like, dear?), the default assumption is that, if we haven’t specifically arranged something else for the kids, they will be coming along. There is nothing presumptuous or ignorant about this state of affairs; it is just how life happens to work for busy parents.
Now.
I KNOW that weddings aren’t the same class of event as a trip to the movies or the pizza joint.
AND I AM NOT arguing that any false assumption that anyone might make in regard of (perceived)implied invitation of kids to a wedding is ‘OK’, ‘correct’, ‘desirable’ or anything else like that.
BUT
I can imagine a set of circumstances whereby, in the whirlwind of activity that is a normal family, a couple with young children might receive an invitation and, due to the inertia of habit, arrive (largely through unconscious processes) at the (mistaken) understanding that the whole family is invited.
OF COURSE it isn’t correct, desirable etc, but it also wouldn’t be an act of wilful and selfish ignorance or deliberate and inconsiderate rudeness (and I believe that to assume that this is the only possibility is, in itself, somewhat ignorant); it isn’t excusable, but it is understandable, IMO.
Not really. If people were saying that they had a relatively large number of uninvited children show up -for example, 50 couples were invited without their kids and 25 of them brought their children- then I’d say the rule might be changing. People aren’t saying that. They’re saying that a couple of children showed up uninvited. If you invite fifty couples with children and only one or two bring the uninvited kids, that supports the rule not changing. If there is only one couple with uninvited kids, and they bring them, it’s too small a sample to generalize at all.
I have two children. When they were younger, I never assumed they were invited to any event we had been invited to, unless it was a family gathering or a children’s party. If I was in doubt, I would always check with a quick phone call.
There are many instances and occasions where it would be inappropriate to turn up with your children, as in any type of adult party, dinner or work function. Consequently I find it very hard to believe some people would just assume their children were always automatically invited or turn up with them due to the “inertia of habit”.
‘Assume’ seems to imply conscious consideration; I am suggesting the possibility of process being entirely overlooked.
I can tell that you (and others) find it hard to believe, but that’s just the way it goes. It is often the case that things we wouldn’t have even imagined suddenly seems obvious and self-evident after they have come to our attention and we have consciously thought on them.
[QUOTE=Jonathan Chance]
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. QUOTE]
Don’t use my example as support for “misunderstanding” or the falling away of a custom. I said in my post that even after being told it was a no kids affair, she took it upon herself to just invite anybody and everybody she chose. There was no misunderstanding about it, and that’s my beef with CandidGamera’s comments; even after being repeatedly told that some people to still keep to the custom of “whoever is on the invitation is invited,” there’s still this feeling that an invitation addressed to them equals carte blanche to invite whoever they please, no matter the host’s intentions when extending the invitations, and that it should be A-OK with everybody.
I didn’t think the issue was assigning blame for the misunderstanding. JC was upset at his friend’s tone in that last convo, not the misunderstanding itself, was my impression.
It’s really neither side’s fault, if the invitee simply isn’t aware of the protocol.
I’ll reply anyway, on the off-chance you’re still here listening, after the drive-by personal attack. No, I’m not that sort of person. Bringing extra people somewhere is something I would never do. I AM the sort of person who’ll stand up for folks who are being blamed for things that just aren’t their fault.
Because WIR is a more distinctive abbreviation than IR?
The problem I have with your sample invitation (ignoring the fact that I agree with the others here who find disinviting people on an invitation unpleasant), is that I still have no idea how I am to make my wishes clear at my own wedding. How can I invite some kids and not others?
That was a little out of left-field. Actually, that was out of the bleachers NEXT to left-field. I’ll say again… if I knew that kids weren’t to come to an event, there’s no way in hell I’d bring kids to that event. I’d never disrupt someone’s special day, it wouldn’t be just or fair.
Regarding the parent-closer-to-child-than-other-parent … problems? Well, it may be that the parents are close to a separation; it may be that one parent travels a lot, and the remaining parent has formed a lot closer bond with the child.
I would say there is no way to do it without offending.
Only if you use some sort of system like - age cut off, 13 and up. But if you say this person’s 5 year-old can come and your 7 year-old can’t come then you are going to offend the parents of the 7 year-old.
I said it before, and several of our posters failed to read it, but I’ll say it again, and in more detail.
My own personal behaviorial code goes a little something like this.
A host has the right to set whatever conditions they like on a get-together.
If I am aware of these conditions, and accept them, I will attend if able and I will follow those conditions.
If I do not accept them, I won’t attend.
If I am made aware of a condition after agreeing to attend, I reserve the right to leave immediately.
Not only would I never deliberately flaunt the invitation-rule, there’s a 99% chance I wouldn’t even consider asking for an exception. I’d rather not attend than ask for an exception.
Now, on finer points of behavior, like the old elbows-on-the-table issue, I don’t recognize the authority of formal etiquette. If someone specifies that adherence to the details of formal etiquette in all respects was a condition of attendance at a party, I wouldn’t go.
So to those who jump to conclusions regarding an individual they know nothing about, I say : Bite me. 
As odd as I find the fact that it could even be considered offensive for me to invite my beloved cousins without being obligated to spend an extra $1200 to invite kids I don’t know, I’m actually asking more about the communication issue than etiquette. For those who are suggesting that the best way to make it clear that only parents are invited is to put “No kids” or “Adults only” on the invitation, I’m pointing out that in my case, that wouldn’t work, I don’t want an “Adults Only” wedding. Is there really no way for me to have an “Invited People Only Regardless of Age” wedding?
I had the suggestion of three flavors of invites before, but it is an extra expense.
You could just try calling the folks whose kids aren’t to attend and telling them in a friendly fashion that you’ve “got two seats just waiting for them” or some such.
Our just accept the risk that some folks don’t know the invitation rule and may bring extra kids. Doesn’t always happen.
That’s my confusion, though. Even if I had specific invites for each different scenario, I can’t imagine what flavour (hee) I would send when I want to invite just parents, since it couldn’t say “No kids”.