I can understand disagreeing with my point, but I can’t understand you claiming it is not making any sense.
Hell, a couple of times now you have admitted that what I say does, in fact, happen - just that you don’t get why it does.
Either: ‘although we love kids, this is an adults-only event, sorry!’
Or, if you are happy for some kids to come, but not all:
‘We are very limited for space, so please ask me if you need to bring anyone not named on the invite. Thanks!’
I’ve had a couple of invites that specified no kids allowed - these were from friends who are parents and their kids were away for the weekend so they wanted a proper grown-up party. They were also for daytime barbeques where people would generally either assume kids were OK or think they probably were and ask to check, so it was worth being specific.
Most of my other invites haven’t specified. Either it’s obvious (party starting at 10pm at a the house of a friend who’s heavily into controlled substances) or they don’t really mind either way and I ask if it would be appropriate to bring my child, knowing that they know me, so know I won’t be offended by a refusal.
They also know the way I am with my child, so know that I will take care of my daughter while at the party and won’t disappear to get trollied while expecting everyone to watch my daughter.
It’s actually not that hard, TBH, negotiating the ‘bring kids or not’ thing. Write it down and it sounds complicated but in real life people almost always figure it out.
As would bringing uninvited children.
Now we go 'round and 'round, and back to the beginning. 
My point is that “bringing uninvited children” is a reasonably common occurance, which is why the wedding ediquette site I found recommends people specifically tell others it’s a child-free event.
If it’s really as uncommon as (say) bringing Chuck the Chiropractor, or Dick the Dentist, I guess that site had no reason to mention it, and this whole conversation is pointless, right?
I was too, and agree with what you said. The problem is, that some people assume that even though their kids aren’t specifically named, it’s ok to just bring them anyway, and I can’t see a reasonable way to avoid that.
I get that, and I get that it’s just a message board reply so why bother, but on a larger scale, a person hosting a party has other things they want to do than to figure out how to specifically word each invitation to cover all bases to ensure only the invited people show up.
Right, that’s exactly what I’ve been asking. I don’t understand why some people interpret invitations the way you do, and I don’t see what a host can do to accommodate people who are going to make assumptions. Apparently you don’t either.
That’s why my example specifically wasn’t referring to an adults only event. And I find this
cringe-worthy. It neither suits the tone of a formal invitation or makes the recipient feel like an intelligent grown-up.
Yet, apparently, people don’t.
Sigh. You’re right, it probably is pointless, but seriously, that etiquette site you found is really, really bad. If you insist on finding one site in all the internet that sort of agrees with you (please go reread it, it contradicts itself like crazy) then fine, but a 2 minute search would find a whole lot more sites that tell you the people on the invite are the people invited. Yes, I agree with you that there are rude people out there. No, I don’t know how a host can get around that. I find that weird. That has been my whole point all along, nothing else. Your point as far as I could understand was to say that it was weird for a host to expect the people invited would be the people who attend, and to defend the rudeness by talking about “tradition” and what society expects from children while ignoring the traditions and societal expectations of reading your invitation and getting a babysitter if your kids aren’t invited. My examples are not about Chuck or dentists or dogs, they are valid, reasonable situations that as far as I can tell can politely be handled only one way. You seem to think there are other ways, but don’t feel like sharing, so c’est la vie, we agree to disagree. But think about those finger-bowl guests the next time you want to insist that every time you’ve ever gotten an invitation addressed just to you and shlepped the whole family along that it was ok, really! They meant to include them! The finger bowl guests are out there saying the same thing when someone tries to tell them how it really is. No, really! The queen did it that way.
If you think that’s my point, then you haven’t really been listening to my point.
My daughter is seven (well past kindergarten), and I have never ever seen a birthday party where additional parents were unwelcome. They are not always expected to stay, but it is never the case that they are kicked out if they want to stay. Even if I don’t want to stay at the party, and even at this age, I personally might feel a little weird about someone who won’t let me see what they’re doing with my daughter if I want to.
Do you have children? Or are you assuming that you correctly remember all the etiquette that was associated with children’s birthday parties as it existed when you were a child? Because (1) it probably has changed somewhat, and (2) the kids are frequently not aware of all communications that occur between the grownups.
In what way doesn’t it make the recipient feel like an intelligent grown-up?
Yes, it is informal. I didn’t realise you meant a formal event where you have to hire a hall and pay for meals per head. Then it is invite-only and doesn’t need to be specified. I know the occasional clueless person will disregard that - but I only know that because of people complaining about it on here; it’s not the norm.
Yes, I have kids. I maintain that an invitation to Suzy is an invitation to Suzy, and while other arrangements can be and often are worked out, it’s rare that a parent would just assume they are expected to stay for the party without some kind of conversation first.
I apologize, I think I am coming across as kind of cranky about this, and I’m sorry. Aside from my wedding, where uninvited guests would have been a problem, I actually have never hosted a party where I would be horrified to see unexpected people arrive and know that it’s a possiblility when I send invitations. But as I mentioned above, I can think of times and situations where it could be a problem, and I find it frustrating that there is a perfectly sensible and age-old convention to avoid this that is being ignored by some, and derided as a weird and surprising “formula” by others, when it just seems so completely obvious to me.
Malthus, I didn’t mean to be snarky. Yes, that really is what I thought your point was, and I’m truly sorry that I have no idea what else you were trying to say, I wish I did. I’m sorry.
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to be rude. Yes, I think a lot of my posts in this thread have mainly been talking about events to which written invitations are issued, like weddings or dinners at a hall. I think more informal things like bbqs and whatnot probably can be more easily sorted out verbally or with a casual little add-on at the bottom of a mass email invite. I agree that it’s not the norm for people to bring uninvited guests especially to a formal event, and this thread has surprised me that not only are people saying they didn’t know that or have ignored it, they are saying it is weird to assume that only the people who are named on the invitation are invited. So it was to them that I was asking how you could make sure that only the invited people came, and I still don’t see how it can be done.
As for not feeling like a grown-up, if I received any kind of formal invitation that told me not to bring anyone else, I guess I wouldn’t be offended exactly, but I would find it off-putting, yeah. Just as I would if there was any other advice not to do something that seems obviously rude to me, like please don’t eat with your fingers or please don’t drink too much.
I think maybe we’re talking past each other (and this whole discussion is tangential anyway). I agree with the above. A parent doesn’t normally assume that they are expected to stay after about age four or five (unless their child is special needs or something). However, I think that they do normally assume that they are welcome to stay for several years after that. At least, that’s how it works in my community.
Yup, that’s pretty well the modern norm. At least, in my experience.
Heh, no worries. 
Maybe there’s a bit of a disconnect there then, with people not being clear about the kind of events they’re talking about.
I kinda see what you mean about not asking people to bring extra guests being too obvious to be stated, but I thought you were asking for a solution where that wasn;t the case, like a family party when the last one had Cousin Bob turning up with 20 of his best buds and drinking everything including the goldfish bowl, so wanted a way round it.
Of course they’re not kicked out if they want to stay. That would be rude. I didn’t kick out the parents who wanted to stay , either.But that doesn’t mean they (or the extra siblings they brought) were invited
Yeah. Kids’ parties usually only last a couple of hours - for some parents it’d be a hassle to leave and come back again.
I agree. And I think the traditional and standard form of invitation–specifying those invited–is unambiguous. The problem arises with those who infer something else and don’t take it upon themselves to contact the host in advance to check.
As far as I can see, Malthus’ approach is designed to “put at ease” this minority of presuming guests at the expense of the host’s preferences and all the other guests.
Meh? What’s the cost to the host and all other guests of (say) calling up a couple with a kid and specifically telling them it’s an adults event, or putting such a notice on the invite itself?
The point is to remove the chance of mixed signals, not to reward “presumption”.
You guys are making a mountain out of a mole-hill.
I’m talking about the suggestion that it is inappropriate to “humiliate” guests who have presumed to bring children, or dogs, or hitchhikers picked up along the way, or whatever… that instead those people should be “put at ease.” Naturally this changes the character of the event for everyone else, to accommodate the interloper. (I’m not saying the door must be barred and the presuming guest sent home, but neither should there be pretense that everything is fine and expected.)
Yes, I understand that you feel such situations can be avoided by listing exclusions in the invitation. I disagree; if you’re dealing with people who might make their own assumptions about bringing unlisted guests to your private event, there’s no natural end to the exclusions that must be made. Maybe you’ve never had guests assume more than you imagined possible, but if everyone was following your thinking here it’s a cinch that such situations would arise repeatedly in some circles. And frankly an “invitation” listing all the various unwelcome parties rather than simply the welcome doesn’t come off as very inviting, even if one happens to be in the latter group.
The most natural, unambiguous, polite and practical approach is for everyone to take it as a given that people and other beings not mentioned in an invitation are not to attend (unless, of course, specific permission is sought and received by the invited guest, in advance). This is the traditional understanding. It’s the retreat from this standard which has mixed the signals.
I don’t really like young kids, and I’m rarely happy to see them anywhere that I’m hanging out - bars, restaurants, parks, etc. And good lord, sharing transportation with them (train, bus, plane, etc) is far too often an awful experience. But there’s one place I absolutely love seeing kids: bookstores.
Seriously - I think that one of the very, very best things you can do as a parent is to take your kids to bookstores, and buy them books. (Within reason, of course). Kids take pride in owning things, and owning books encourages them to read the things. That’s good for the kids, good for the bookstores, and good for society as a whole. I’ve seen screaming kids in bookstores, and it stinks - but I’m very glad their parents made the effort.
Kids belong in bookstores!