She signs all her memos with her new last name, and also it has been changed on the little sign on her mailbox and the one on her desk.
I think I will do this because I know her better (have met him only once) and it would just seem awkward the other way around.
The problem is that the phrase No Children Please is not really as clear as you think. Does it include/exclude your 16 year old cousin? Your 12 year old neice? Your bosses 18 year old son? I don’t know, not for sure, and neither will your guests. If I assume 18 is your cutoff, what does that mean for my (imaginary) kid who is turning 18 at roughly the same time as your wedding? Did you intend for him to go, or not? I don’t know because I cannot be sure you know his birthday, so I don’t know what you think his age is. It is your responsibility to decide who is invited, not mine.
The fancy pants etiquette method is 100% cut and dried crystal clear no mistakes possible, as long as you know the rule exists. A 5 year old can understand the rule and know exactly who is invited and who is not with a glance at the invitation. If the name is on the invite, that person is invited, if the name is not on the invite, that person is not invited. It is the clearest, most concise way of communicating these facts, but because it is “etiquette” people don’t think they need to know the rules. They think etiquette is all about fancy dinner parties with mounds of silverware to worry over, it isn’t.
These manner mavens have actually put a lot of thought into these things. Sometimes the rules seem odd, but usually they are very well thought out and really do make things easier on eveyrone.
You can address it either way, but for those of us who do change our names, it’s kind of cool getting “Mr. and Mrs.” mail for the first month or two. Then the novelty wears off.
It is obviously not entirely clear, as several folks in this thread have taken issue with its clarity … and several folks I’ve spoken to offline think that young children are implied with the parents’ invitation. “No children, please” in this case is an extra instruction, which, combined with the omission of names from the wedding invitation, yields additional clarity. “Well, they say no children, but they put 14-year old Bobby’s name on the invitation … I guess he can come, but 8-year old Marissa needs a sitter.”
Or, heck, maybe stick to your “named invitees only” rule and put a tiny little reminder of that convention at the bottom, so the guests will know you worship at the alter of the manners-mavens.
CG: *“No children, please” in this case is an extra instruction, which, combined with the omission of names from the wedding invitation, yields additional clarity. *
How about the compromise I suggested back on page 1 or 2 or something…namely, putting the explicit “No kids under 13” notice not on the invitation itself, but on one of the accompanying info sheets in the invitation envelope?
That way, you’re not disinviting someone on the invitation itself, but the information still clearly gets across to those who happen not to know the not-invited-if-not-named etiquette rule.
Haven’t heard any actual objections to this suggestion so far, but it doesn’t seem to have stemmed the dispute over whether “No kids” ought to be put on the formal invitation.
As CandidGamera says, it simply isn’t self-evident; there would be no problem with the etiquette if the message was self-unpacking, but it isn’t - it is one of those things that seems blindingly obvious in hindsight, but isn’t so to someone encountering it as a newbie.
I am soooooooooo glad I am never getting married again. I don’t think I could get past the being-poilte-but-just-enough-so-that-everyone-knows-what-you-mean stage.
As long as the information is conveyed in the same general package, it’s fine. So that suggestion works. I thought my acceptance of it was obvious when I didn’t argue against it. 
Well, see, this is part of my problem with what the groom did. He took any options the Chances had regarding wedding attendance out of their hands.
The instant he said “I’ll see what I can do” in regards to childcare, the Chances could not realistically check around for local childcare. I guarantee you, the instance Jonathan Chance called the groom and said “Never mind, we’ve got childcare handled,” the groom would have gotten upset, because he (or the bride) has been working on a problem that could’ve been ignored.
If the Chances don’t look for local childcare, they run the risk of the groom contacting them (who knows when) to say “Sorry, can’t arrange childcare.” At that point, any plans they’ve made regarding wedding attendance have to be rearranged, if that’s still possible.
I would be willing to bet money that the groom could care less about the child-attendance rule for the wedding. It’s not his rule, and he doesn’t really understand why it’s in place. He was just reacting to his old friend’s dilemma. He wants his friend at the wedding, so he figures “Well, this won’t be a big deal. I’ll talk to Ali and tell her JC needs to bring his baby.” When he mentions it, though, Ali explains (either calmly or not) that he is a moron. She has already told several of her friends that they can’t bring their children, and she’s up a creek if one of HIS friends shows up with child in tow.
The groom should have just told JC that the rule was firm. He did the worst possible thing he could’ve done in the situation. And he compounded that by not giving the Chances the information they needed to plan their trip (in a timely manner, in my opinion).
Whether or not the Chances could have looked around or not is totally irrelevant to what constitutes a reasonable time-frame for the groom to look for a baby-sitter. If it’s reasonable to give a parent (who’s used to looking for child-care) a couple of days to arrange such things, it’s unreasonable to expect someone who isn’t used to looking for child-care to get it done in less time. The OP apparently asked the very next day, and the next, and the next. If he’d been the one in charge of finding a baby-sitter and the groom had been asking about it every single day, he’d be annoyed, and rightly so.
CrazyCatLady:
In the first place, Jonathan Chance did not bug the groom “every day.” Two days went by after the first conversation, and another two days went by after that.
In the second place, if it was gonna take the Chances a week or so to find a babysitter on their own, they needed to know something quickly to finalize their plans.
The groom should never have been looking for childcare in the first place. Once he volunteered to do so, however, he owes it to his guest to get him an answer (or at least touch base with him to let him know how the search was going) quickly so the guest can make the appropriate arrangements.
I’m not saying the groom should’ve called JC back in two hours and said “Everything’s handled.” I’m saying that once he committed to check into the possibility of childcare, he had an obligation to let his guest know how the search was going. In my opinion, five days from the time the offer was made is too long to leave a guest in limbo.
And when someone doesn’t closely peruse the fine print of the accompanying sheets, they’re just fucked. And when someone’s child is turning 13 right around the wedding date, they still don’t have a clue whether or not you actually want them to come.
Fact is, there is a brutally simple and foolproof guideline to follow that is agreed upon by everyone who knows invitation etiquette. The only caveat is that one must know of the existance of the rule. Instead, people willfully avoid looking these things up in favor of just going blindly their own way.
Cheesesteak: *And when someone doesn’t closely peruse the fine print of the accompanying sheets, they’re just fucked. And when someone’s child is turning 13 right around the wedding date, they still don’t have a clue whether or not you actually want them to come. *
True, too true. That brings up another objection to my proposed new convention that occurred to me after I posted (natch). To wit, it’s probably not a good idea to have any kind of “no kids” policy stated in a fixed format on any mass-printed part of the invitation packet, because—as in the case of an earlier poster whose name I can’t recall and her “mostly child-free wedding”—most hosts will want to make a few ad hoc exceptions to the policy. E.g.:
No way, I regretfully conclude, can we come up with any kind of usable one-size-fits-all “no kids” policy that can be stated identically on everybody’s invitation, or any part thereof.
Bummer. Now what? Back where we started with the existing names-on-the-envelope rule and tactful individual phone calls as a backup?
Oh for Crissakes…I was born and raised in the hills of West Virginnie which is a close to being actually raised by wolves as you can get in the continental US and I still know the basic rules of etiquette.
Sorry, CG, but there are some things that it is up to the individual to know. The hosts should not have to print, “Guests are kindly requested to refrain from washing their balls in the finger bowls” on the invitation because you may have that not-so-fresh feeling while at the reception.
Hey, anyone who thinks less of me because I don’t own a copy of a particular book and memorize its tenets can go screw themselves.
And it’s always been easier, and more practical, in my experience, to just tell people things I want them to know. Directness is not a crime.
That? Is just absolute crap. The Chance’s “couldn’t” check around for their own childcare? On what freakin’ planet? Were their hands bound and their phone lines cut off and their mouths taped shut? That’s just utterly absurd.
Not to mention, how the hell could you possibly “guarantee” what the groom would’ve said or not said if the burden of getting a babysitter for someone else’s kid was removed from his fiancée’s shoulders? I guarantee you, the instant Jonathan Chance called the groom and said, “Never mind, we’ve got childcare handled,” the groom would’ve heaved a fucking sigh of relief, thanked him profusely, shouted for joy that his buddy was gonna be there and his soon-to-be-wife would have one less thing to worry about arranging and could stop being pissed off at him for burdening her with that extra job in the first place!!
Jonathan Chance should never have burdened the groom with his personal repsonsibility of taking care of his child to begin with. Even if the groom got on his knees and begged. It was not the groom’s repsonisiblity. He said no kids. Jonathan Chance should have respected that, but he was too “cheesed off” to. He “did not want” to have to deal with this problem, so he allowed his friend, who is in the middle of the busiest, most chaotic and hectic event-planning to take on his responsibility. He. Was. Wrong. A polite person would have said, “I couldn’t possibly put you and your lovely bride to that much trouble with everything else you have to deal with! I wouldn’t even dream of it. We will see what arrangements we can work out on our own and let you know if we hit any roadblocks. I’ll keep you posted. Thanks for the clarification.”
It was his job to do in the first place, so any offer of assistance is at the discretion of the person who offered to help. And if he doesn’t like how fast it was being done, then he bloody well should’ve stepped in and done it himself.
The end.
Okay, Shayna. We’ll just agree to disagree on this point.
Peace.
Problem with this, too. People being hurt and insulted that the hosts assume they don’t know the convention. Sure , some of my relatives could call me up and say somethng like " Gee, we really wish we could invite the kids", and have it come off well . Plenty of my relatives and some friends couldn’t- they don’t really know my kids and some have never met them . It’s either a fake sounding “wish we could invite them” or a flat out " you know, we’re not inviting kids". ( even if the truth is"your kids aren’t invited, but there will be others there"). And some people will take the second as if you’re telling them they are expected to use a knife and fork to eat dinner.
Oh my God! I can’t stop laughing…help…
no one is requiring that you own a book, or memorize rules. Simply that the persons specified on an invitation are those who are invited, and not assume that includes anyone else not specified. And should you continue to have difficulty with the concept, consider accessing the information through commonly known resources such as online, libraries, book stores, wedding planners, you know folks who actually know the subject? and if all of that fails, call the bride/ groom involved.
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”