# Wedding Invitations (mis)interpretation **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [December 13, 2005, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501 "2005-12-13T22:47:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [January 20, 2006, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/121 "2006-01-20T00:26:48Z")
> [@missbunny](#): > > Ascenray, that is very interesting to know. I hadn’t known things worked that way in India. I still think that in most places “here” (in the U.S.) it’s considered wrong to just bring a bunch of people not named (orally or in writing) but as other U.S. posters have said, it _is_ common in their geographical areas. I suppose it’s best that hosts don’t assume that people would “know” how things work, and guests don’t assume that what they believe to be “the way” is the way it is for everyone. There’s sort of a practical problem from the host’s point of view though. As I guest, if I suspect my children might be invited even though there was no “and family” or something similar on the envelope, I can always call and congratulate the bride ,say I’m looking forward to attending, and that I hope I can find someone to keep an eye on the children. As the host, what am I to do? I was pretty sure at least one of my husband’s (American-born and assimilated) relatives might bring an uninvited child , but had no clue which one it would be. Should I print “No children under 18 on the invitation”, and risk a problem because there were, in fact, a couple of children invited? Should I print “no uninvited children” or call everyone who might have children and risk insulting the 99% of guests who figured it out from the address? Do I just hope that no one asks why or gets offended because I invited this child but not theirs? ---
**Author:** ![ninevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/46a35a/32.png) [@ninevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninevah)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/122 "2006-01-22T22:36:30Z")
Ok, here’s that follow up. . . . . . Said Mother and baby didn’t show. Baby was admitted to hospital with very high temperature on Thursday or Friday night. I’m sorry to disappoint y’all, but that’s how it turns out. Personally, I think the then-pregnant mother was silly to think she could still make it to the wedding with newborn baby in tow, regardless of whether it was two weeks old or (as it was) a 5 day old infant. Oh, and the wedding itself went perfectly, like a dream. I am a very happy bride! ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/123 "2006-01-22T22:42:14Z")
Congratulations! I hope Baby will be all right. ---
**Author:** ![robardin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/43a26b/32.png) [@robardin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robardin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2006, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/124 "2006-01-22T22:44:09Z")
> [@ninevah](#): > > […]Oh, and the wedding itself went perfectly, like a dream. I am a very happy bride! Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetums, but the wedding’s over, you’re no longer “a bride” but “a wife”. So get yer bum back in the kitchen, and take off those shoes, you won’t be needin’ those no more! 😉 (PS - if my wife happens to see this on my screen, she should know I was forced to type this at gunpoint by assailants unknown.) ---
**Author:** ![Dung\_Beetle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dung_beetle/32/7945_2.png) [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/125 "2006-01-23T01:43:19Z")
Congratulations, **ninevah**! ---
**Author:** ![CowPatty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/439d5e/32.png) [@CowPatty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CowPatty)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/126 "2006-01-23T03:06:43Z")
> [@Snakescatlady](#): > > A friend of mine was in tears when she got her wedding video and you couldn’t hear the vows because of the screaming of a bored child who hadn’t been invited in the first place. That happened to me, too. In spite of our “no kids” invitations someone thought the restriction couldn’t possibly apply to her own baby and brought him anyway. The kid started screaming holy hell as soon as the ceremony started and didn’t stop until it was over. The entire soundtrack of our wedding is Screaming Baby… no vows, no harp solo, no anything else. Screaming Baby’s mom had the nerve to laugh about it as she went through the reception line. That was 22 years ago and I’m still both furious and broken hearted. :mad: My advice is definitely have a “no kids” policy _and_ make sure the ushers understand and enforce it for you. No exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![jasonh300](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/46a35a/32.png) [@jasonh300](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jasonh300)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 4:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/127 "2006-01-23T04:54:07Z")
> [@ninevah](#): > > No, we are taking a no-kids policy because of cost restrictions. Additionally, this is the only couple invited that have kids, so we hadn’t considered kids to be an essential part of the wedding, be it as involvement or as a guest. > > A wedding is a personal thing - where does it necessarily say that children **must** be involved?? The cost restrictions are definitely justified. When I got married, the children in attendence ended up costing us $900.00. I had originally said ‘no children’, but I wasn’t going to exclude our own two kids and they were standing in the wedding and my wife’s neice and nephew were in the wedding party, so as a result, we couldn’t exclude the other 32 children in the immediate and near immediate family. I’m still amazed to this day that it wasn’t a total circus. But the normally rowdy bunch of kids were very well behaved. The reception hall ended up giving us 1/2 price for kids, even though it was not their policy to do so. We were the first wedding party there (under new management) and when they saw that the children were not consuming alcohol and didn’t eat much, they decided to cut us some slack. But even if cost is not an issue, a wedding can be considered an adult event. That’s up to you and your future spouse. And if anyone complains about the no-children rule, it’s probably going to be the one who has the worst-behaved child in the family. They never can see how bad their own kids are. ---
**Author:** ![Dung\_Beetle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dung_beetle/32/7945_2.png) [@Dung\_Beetle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dung_Beetle)\ **Post date:** [January 23, 2006, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/128 "2006-01-23T13:33:16Z")
I don’t actually have a no-children rule, but the invitations I sent out specifically limited each person to bring one guest. I’ve had four people already ask me about bringing more than one person. Grrr! ---
**Author:** ![ninevah](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/46a35a/32.png) [@ninevah](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ninevah)\ **Post date:** [January 24, 2006, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501/129 "2006-01-24T02:25:06Z")
> [@robardin](#): > > Sorry to burst your bubble, sweetums, but the wedding’s over, you’re no longer “a bride” but “a wife”. So get yer bum back in the kitchen, and take off those shoes, you won’t be needin’ those no more! 😉 > > (PS - if my wife happens to see this on my screen, she should know I was forced to type this at gunpoint by assailants unknown.) Geez thanks for that jolt back to reality! 😉 Pfft, I say. I’m reckon I’m still a bride until we come back from the honeymoon - we leave for the Cook Islands tomorrow! yay!! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/wedding-invitations-mis-interpretation/335501.md?page=6)