Adults-only weddings

[SproutMamaK]

But then they can provide their own food, worse case scenario.  It's not difficult to accommodate food allergies or illnesses like diabetes, but not providing childcare or saying no kids nearly guarantees the kid-couple won't attend.  My point was, why pretend it's important that they be there if the wedding couple has made it almost a sure-fire that they cannot?

Why on earth would not providing childcare guarantee that someone with children wouldn't attend? I trust myself to vet childcare for my children more than I trust someone else to do it for me. If I don't have any reliable sitters for my children, or anyone willing to keep them overnight, that's not the fault of the bride and groom. Why would I expect people who are just getting married and probably have no children to have better access to babysitters than me? If I got an invite to an adults-only wedding, it certainly would NOT guarantee I wouldn't attend. Quite the opposite, I'd do a happy dance, book a sitter, and enjoy some time where I didn't have to chase around my kids in an environment where the slightest misbehaviour would case even more trouble than normal. How is it completely unthinkable for someone to find a sitter for their own children, but apparently absolutely no trouble at all for a bride and groom (who are likely not in that stage of life) to find enough sitters to care for EVERYONE ELSE'S children?

Edited September 15, 2016 by SproutMamaK

[goldberry]

Yes. I think I've posted this in a similar thread before, because I'm having deja vu, but I attended a wedding once where one particular family's children were running around like it was a playground instead of a wedding reception.  They ran into a table, knocking over the centerpiece and glasses.  They ran into many guests, and the bride.  And the parents just sat and smiled obliviously and did absolutely nothing to curtail them in any way.  So I would suggest that the people who are upset at couples who don't invite children might consider redirecting their ire to the parents who don't parent, because I believe they are the ones ruining it for everyone.

 

:iagree:  :iagree:  :iagree:  That is the heart of the matter.

[Greta]

Judith Martin's Miss Manners books are my favorite (and I've read them all, lol): Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Miss Manners' Guide to the Turn of the Millennium, Miss Manners' Guide to Rearing Perfect Children. Miss Manners On Weddings. Not only are they fun to read, but they really are excellent guides to correct behavior and all that. :-)

 

 

They sound fun!  Thanks, Ellie.

[FaithManor]

Reefgazer, you are the only parent I have personally heard of that is quite willing to dump their kids off with total strangers in order to attend a wedding. If that is okay with you, fine. Arrange your own. NO bride or groom should take on the liability of providing child care for their event. Seriously. It is a stupid thing to do.

 

It is the parents' responsibility to determine what their childcare needs are according to their own boundaries and comfort zone and provide it. Period.

 

Oh and I called the Doubletree Hotel. It is the largest event venue we have in the area - a nearly one hour drive each direction from here so locals aren't going to be available to babysit but this is the ONLY place big enough to accomodate a decent size reception and a kid pizza party - and guess what! The manager was appalled at the idea. 100% appalled. "There is no way we would agree to such a liability, and I know of no other wedding venue in the area that would agree to such a thing." direct quote

 

Despite what "The Knot" says - and as an event planner I can tell you that this lovely magazine of wealthy wedding yahoos actually gives out a lot of advice that is not rooted in the budgetary and execution ability of most families - it is ludicrous for parents to get their noses out of joint because daycare isn't provided.

 

Lets ponder the implications:

 

Extra liability insurance to cover it if the site does not have a policy for daycare.

 

Toys and activities to entertain the masses during what is normally with ceremony and reception a combined several hour stretch. All of which must be hauled to the facility, all of which must be hauled away after.

 

Food, snacks, and food issues for the children with allergies must be addressed. Other medical conditions that could be a problem must be addressed. No different than the forms that parents fill out here just to send child to VBS for a couple of hours.

 

Parent cell phones numbers collected and organized for the care providers. Name labels for all the kids.

 

Diaper bags have to be labeled and organized for each little one.

 

Places to sleep for babies and toddlers need to be provided.

 

Enough adults and teens to keep the older ones entertained while others rock the fussy young ones.

 

Policies created in order to determine when parents will be called and when they will not.

 

Potty issues.

 

Whatever instructions you leave for your babysitters, whatever rules you have, multiply that by every parent who leaves a kid because this is not a run to the movies and come right back gig. This is leaving them for 4-6 even 8 hours if parents and to dance or wait to see the happy couple off. And judging by how parents treat church children's ministries workers, many will leave those kids as long as they think they can possible get awag with.

 

Daycare here at $4.00 an hour per child times 15 kids times 6 hrs minimum is $360 plus the room use $500 which the hotels here would not be willing to give up but for the sake of argument we will pretend that they agree. That is $860 food and beverages for 15 kids for 6 hrs. No outside food allowed except things like the contents of a sippy cup or baby formula...baggies of cheerios...diaper bag fare. So at the child menu prices of $8 per child (this is the chicken fingers and french fry meal) $120. Up to about 1K now. $66 per kid. Are you paying that????

 

I doubt it. I think that if a bride and groom somehow pulled the daycare thing together and then told parents they could leave their child for $66 each, there would be another thread about nasty, self centered brides and grooms who think families can afford that daycare price. Same families would not pay the per head price for their children to attend the wedding, but do expect that other adults go uninvited in order to make room for their children for whom the wedding does not hold the same specialness as it does to older teens and adults.

 

There is no way on earth any bride or groom should be compelled to do this. An adults only wedding of 100 could easily rack up a list of 15-20 kids needing daycare.

 

And like I said not only do we not have any churches with both a fellowship hall and an education wing with another big room that they are willing to open and have used during a wedding reception, the hotels and restaurants do not want the liability and potential damage of a large group of little kids.

 

I have a house big enough to do it, and there is no one I am related to or friends with that I would be willing to do this for. None. I cannot afford the damage.

 

Jane, on the topic of water venues, I know of a beach wedding done years ago here on Lake Huron at a state park that had a drowning. It is very easy for a tot to get away from mom and dad. The one parent thought the other had the child and were separated from each other while visiting with guests. When they realized that neither had him, everyone took to searching. He was found not all that far away in shallow water. So awful! He probably fell over and couldn't get his legs back underneath him. Toddlers and babies are so top heavy.

 

Due to that I always tell brides to have no kid wedding ceremonies if they are doing water front or hire a lifeguard and make sure he or she has full view of the area unimpeded by guests, equipment, and decorations. This is no different from pool parties we have all heard of where a child drowns in plain sight of numerous adults and teens. It happens. Parties are so very distracting.

 

Glad you were there for the little guy. Sooooo scary!

Edited September 15, 2016 by FaithManor

[zoobie]

Reefgazer, you are the only parent I have personally heard of that is quite willing to dump their kids off with total strangers in order to attend a wedding. If that is okay with you, fine. Arrange your own. NO bride or groom should take on the liability of providing child care for their event. Seriously. It is a stupid thing to do.

 

It is the parents' responsibility to determine what their childcare needs are according to their own boundaries and comfort zone and provide it. Period.

 

Yeah, if I had used babysitters, I wouldn't need the bride and groom to provide my childcare. We have declined a few weddings because of the kids. I wasn't going to leave my 6 week old with whatever random person the bride and groom hired. Or because it was the same night as my daughter's ballet recital. Life happens. No big deal. The fact that my kids exist and have needs is my problem to solve. Not someone else's. I'd never expect to foist that on a bride. 

[Bluegoat]

My dd and I were having a conversation the other day about this.  I was longing wistfully for the days when our society had more formal rules of etiquette, because for someone who is really socially awkward like me, it seems like it would be nice to know exactly what's expected of you rather than trying to wing it and figure it out as you go!  DD thinks that the advantages of an informal society outweigh the costs.  Perhaps she's right.  I haven't had occasion to actually compare - I'm just romanticizing based on 19th century novels.   :lol:

 

I need a book!  Emily Post?  Miss Manners?  Other?   

 

I think formallity can become overly complicated - (though, there can be a really beautiful aesthetic to complex formalities and I think we sometimes really appreciate it when we see it in other cultures because we don't have it.)

 

But as far as having ways to do things so people know what is expected  - yes, I think that is really quite wonderful.

 

When I was a little girl I had an etiquette book that had been my aunts when she was a girl.  One of the chapters was all about introductions - how to make them and be introduced oneself, to different types of people in different situations.  Another about phone conversations.

 

Both of those were things I really struggled with because I was very shy, especially when I was talking to adults.  I could see the advice was much too out of date to be useful, but I wished it wasn't.

 

I don't really see how that kind of formality has a real downside. 

[Bluegoat]

I'm pretty sure there is not a rental fee. Perhaps a cleaning fee, but not a rental fee, for the sanctuary. You pay an honorarium (gift) to the Priest, for any musical people you use, set up or clean up, but not the use of the sanctuary because by being a member of the parish it is already for your use. 

 

TYpically my parish is similar - for a wedding there is usually an honorarium for the priest (though the one who married me didn't want it,) and a small fee for the sacristan and altar guild who come in and clean, take care of opening the building, and so on.  And the organist is paid for weddings as whatever the going rate for an organist is.  If they also rent the hall there is a very reasonable fee for that.

 

Occasionally things are done a little differently with people with no parish connection, especially if they want to use the second church building, but there are atypical reasons for doing so.

[Bluegoat]

It really is not that simple.  Having tried it myself I ran into issues with the venue right away.  They were not going to accommodate us by providing use of another room or allowing non-catered food in for the kids.  This was before we even tackled the fact that we had no sitters in mind.  It was not a destination wedding but it did take place in my home town where I no longer lived so yes, there was a "scarcity of known (and trusted) child care providers."  My 65 year old mother certainly did not have her finger on the babysitter crowd at that point in her life and neither did any of my other aging relatives.  If a plethora of other venues were available (perhaps one that would have been more accommodating) we would not have been in the situation to begin with.  Had we been able to find an available venue with higher capacity, we would not have had to limit the guest list to begin with.

 

That is just one example of why it was not that simple.  Child care is more special than parking or hotel rooms because real live children are involved.  

 

I think in many situations it could be tricky to provide that kind of child care (though if more people insisted I wonder what the venues would do?)

 

But I think that the idea that it is simple for parents to find sitters is pretty naïve as well.  Many people do have sitters available for their home location, for an evening or a few hours.  Less so for those with toddlers and infants, and also I think the fact is that a surprising number don't have sitters - it's one of the most common complaints I hear from parents who are living far from relatives.

 

But once you are talking about potentially leaving kids overnight, the availability of childcare goes way down.  A lot of people don't have a place they can leave their kids overnight, they would be scrambling even in an emergency. 

 

If a wedding invite is really - well, great if you can come but no worries otherwise, than if parents choose not to come that is really no big deal on either side.

 

But with family, especially immediate family, or very close friends, often it isn't so casual - there can be a real expectation that people should be there if it isn't positively impossible because they have to have a leg amputated or something.  That expectation I think exists on both sides - people generally expect a sibling to come to a wedding, and often they will all really want to attend.

 

And if there are many friends/family that are of the age to have young kids, people on both sides may well be rather disappointed when they find out of town people can't really just drop their kids somewhere for a night or weekend and come to an adults only wedding. 

 

How many parents find that when their kids are small it can be hard to set up a date night much less a parental vacation?  It won't be any easier for a wedding.  So I think realistically if a couple getting married really are wanting couples like that to attend, but they don't want kids at the wedding or reception, they should be thinking about how to facilitate childcare. 

 

ETA: Or, they could rethink the no kids thing.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

I wonder if there is something of a Catch-22 with having not kids attend events, and expectations for behavior at the events? 

 

I loved going to weddings as a kid - I liked the fancy tables and food, I liked seeing the fancy clothes and flowers, I liked getting fake cocktails at the bar, and I really liked being able to stay up late and dance to a dj or band.  Not all kids like those things, but I think we've tended a bit to exclude kids from things that are too "adult" as if they just won't like certain foods or be able to use a napkin properly, and so on. 

 

But then, of course they don't really know how to, and maybe the parents don't feel the social pressure of other kids who do know how to behave showing up their little barbarians.

[TechWife]

I think formallity can become overly complicated - (though, there can be a really beautiful aesthetic to complex formalities and I think we sometimes really appreciate it when we see it in other cultures because we don't have it.)

 

But as far as having ways to do things so people know what is expected  - yes, I think that is really quite wonderful.

 

When I was a little girl I had an etiquette book that had been my aunts when she was a girl.  One of the chapters was all about introductions - how to make them and be introduced oneself, to different types of people in different situations.  Another about phone conversations.

 

Both of those were things I really struggled with because I was very shy, especially when I was talking to adults.  I could see the advice was much too out of date to be useful, but I wished it wasn't.

 

I don't really see how that kind of formality has a real downside. 

 

I'm just using your post as a jumping off point - not directed at you, Bluegoat! 

 

It's interesting that some equate etiquette with formality, because they are not the same thing. Etiquette is polite behavior appropriate to the situation at hand, not formality. Etiquette transcends the setting, it is applicable in any situations and it's purpose is to put others at ease. 

 

Etiquette is: 

courtesy

introducing people to each other in an appropriate manner

treating people with dignity

not pointing out the shortcomings of others

doing what you can to make others comfortable

 

There are a lot of different ways all of these things can be accomplished. Some of them change depending on the culture that a person is in. Etiquette is performing appropriate introductions. Some cultures have unique ways of doing this. For example, when my husband travels to Japan, culture says he presents his business card at the time of introduction and that he slightly bows. In the US, he is orally introduced by others or by himself if he is the one responsible for the meeting. Then he can present his business card at any point during a conversation - upon introduction, during a conversation when he realizes the person he is speaking to needs to speak with him later (or he wants to speak with them later), or at the end of a conversation, or even not at all. 

[poppy]

But then they can provide their own food, worse case scenario. It's not difficult to accommodate food allergies or illnesses like diabetes, but not providing childcare or saying no kids nearly guarantees the kid-couple won't attend. My point was, why pretend it's important that they be there if the wedding couple has made it almost a sure-fire that they cannot?

I am really, really, really not getting why asking parents to spend an evening or a few hours away from their kids = sure fire they cannot attend. Unless the child has medical issues that make a sitter impractical .

 

Most people are willing to put up with some expense and inconvenience in order to attend a family wedding.

Edited September 15, 2016 by poppy

[marbel]

<snip>

 

But with family, especially immediate family, or very close friends, often it isn't so casual - there can be a real expectation that people should be there if it isn't positively impossible because they have to have a leg amputated or something.  That expectation I think exists on both sides - people generally expect a sibling to come to a wedding, and often they will all really want to attend.

 

And if there are many friends/family that are of the age to have young kids, people on both sides may well be rather disappointed when they find out of town people can't really just drop their kids somewhere for a night or weekend and come to an adults only wedding. 

 

<snip>

 

Within a close family, there might be expectations and disappointments but there should also be understanding. The hosting family might also make an effort to accommodate the parents if they want them at the wedding.

 

There's a difference between offering childcare for everyone and siblings working together to find a solution so parents of small kids can go to an adult wedding.  A person getting married for the first time probably doesn't have any trusted babysitters, but they might have friends who do.  If they are associated with a church, there might be trustworthy people there.  Or, there might be no way to help the traveling guests with childcare for whatever reasons and so it is impossible for them to go.  So, the bride and groom have to accept that with grace. 

 

This isn't quite the same thing because kids aren't involved, but a niece of mine is thinking of having a destination wedding in a place that would be too expensive for my family and me to get to.  She wants us there and apparently is a bit upset at the thought we won't go.  Her mom is trying to explain to her that she is welcome to her wedding at her location of choice, but she is not welcome to be upset/angry/disappointed if people simply can't come, even people who are closest to her.   It's not even a question of me going alone; if I could afford one ticket plus hotel, I'd do it, happily.  But even that is not possible.

 

So most likely we will both be sad that no one in my family will be at her wedding.  But, there is nothing to be done about it, no matter what our desires and expectations are.  I have to be gracious about her decision to get married where she wants to, and she should be gracious to me in accepting that we simply can't go.

 

I don't know why that seems to be so hard to achieve for so many people.

 

[Bluegoat]

I am really, really, really not getting why asking parents to spend an evening or a few hours away from their kids = sure fire they cannot attend. Unless the child has medical issues that make a sitter impractical .

 

Most people are willing to put up with some expense and inconvenience in order to attend a family wedding.

 

I don't think there are many weddings these days where everyone is local.

[poppy]

I don't think there are many weddings these days where everyone is local.

Farther of 2 hours can be a pain. But really I'm talking about the many people who have said children not being invited means decline no matter what.

[ktgrok]

And I do think that is should be okay for a bride to have her close family members bring children, but not feel she has to invite every child of every couple. Nieces and nephews of the bride, yes. Children of the bridal party, maybe/probably. Children of her mother's boss, probably not. 

[ktgrok]

Also, it if this is a tiny wedding, I also get no kids. 50 people or less, night time, formal location,intimate affair. Got it. 

 

But generally, if it is a more casual style wedding, I agree with the person who said you figure out who to invite, then figure out how fancy to be after you have that number. If a shindig at the hotel will be too costly to invite everyone, then have a less fancy wedding. That's the advice I'll give my kids. But for anyone else, do what you want, lol. I don't care one bit. 

[Bluegoat]

Within a close family, there might be expectations and disappointments but there should also be understanding. The hosting family might also make an effort to accommodate the parents if they want them at the wedding.

 

There's a difference between offering childcare for everyone and siblings working together to find a solution so parents of small kids can go to an adult wedding.  A person getting married for the first time probably doesn't have any trusted babysitters, but they might have friends who do.  If they are associated with a church, there might be trustworthy people there.  Or, there might be no way to help the traveling guests with childcare for whatever reasons and so it is impossible for them to go.  So, the bride and groom have to accept that with grace. 

 

This isn't quite the same thing because kids aren't involved, but a niece of mine is thinking of having a destination wedding in a place that would be too expensive for my family and me to get to.  She wants us there and apparently is a bit upset at the thought we won't go.  Her mom is trying to explain to her that she is welcome to her wedding at her location of choice, but she is not welcome to be upset/angry/disappointed if people simply can't come, even people who are closest to her.   It's not even a question of me going alone; if I could afford one ticket plus hotel, I'd do it, happily.  But even that is not possible.

 

So most likely we will both be sad that no one in my family will be at her wedding.  But, there is nothing to be done about it, no matter what our desires and expectations are.  I have to be gracious about her decision to get married where she wants to, and she should be gracious to me in accepting that we simply can't go.

 

I don't know why that seems to be so hard to achieve for so many people.

 

 

I actually don't think providing child care is a good overall solution - I think it's better in many cases to realize that if you want some people to attend, it needs to be a family event not just an adult one.

 

But yes - if people are unwilling to do either, they need to graciously accept that some people may not come.

 

I think that where the graciousness has trouble is really that we tend to have a lot of implicit and deep-seated feelings about weddings and other similar events, and sometimes they don't fit in well with our more explicit thoughts or what we expect.  So, in a case like your sisters, perhaps it has always been just something she takes for granted that her close loved ones and relatives will be there, because that, for her, is really part of what weddings are about.  But at the same time, for some reason, she has this idea of a destination wedding - for some people it might just be that they see that sort of thing on tv and it appeals to them, and they tend to accept the idea that the bridal couple gets to choose their dream wedding without much thinking about it.

 

The fact of the matter is, those aren't really compatible sets of expectations, something needs to be let go or seen as more important than the other to make it work.  But I think that because they are such unconscious ideas for many, it creates a sort of illogical response and often anger.

[Murphy101]

I highly doubt that there is a scarcity of known child care providers among a large group of people partying in/near their hometown (I agree destinations weddings are difficult for this). I don't see child care issues as anything special - no more so than planning a meal, reserving a block of hotel rooms, or coordinating parking for the reception.

Our parish will not allow child care on site as part of the venue due to insurance liability. Most will not anymore.

 

And most people think planning a wedding is a PITA bc of the meal planning, hotel rooms and more. Adding to the pita-ness is usually not something they look forward to doing.

 

People should arrange childcare for their own kids. If for no other reason than even if it is provided, many people are not going to come from out of town and leave their young children with a sitter they have never met before. I wouldn't.

[Bluegoat]

Farther of 2 hours can be a pain. But really I'm talking about the many people who have said children not being invited means decline no matter what.

 

I took it to mean some will decline, and I figured they were assuming some guests would proably be from out of town too.

 

I think it's not an unreasonable thing to say, if there are people with kids, and it is an adults only event, there will very likely to be some who decline.  If they are having to travel any real distance, or they have infants, it is much more likely they will decline.  The logistics of leaving a nursing baby for more than a short time are significant.

 

So - if it is important to the couple to have those people come, they need to face that one way or another.

[Bluegoat]

And I do think that is should be okay for a bride to have her close family members bring children, but not feel she has to invite every child of every couple. Nieces and nephews of the bride, yes. Children of the bridal party, maybe/probably. Children of her mother's boss, probably not. 

 

An interesting aspect to this though is, why do people invite the mother's boss?  If it is realy such a large perspective of community that I would see my mother's boss as part of it, I might well see her kids as part of it as well.

 

OTOH, that is a pretty far out connection to begin with unless my mom and her boss are really close.

[ktgrok]

I think it is also perfectly reasonable if you have a close family member who cannot attend because of the no children rule, to set up something with that person, not for the guest list at large. So arranging to pay for a hotel room at the venue, where mom and dad can take turns with the baby while the other attends the reception, offering to scout out babysitters in the area and pay for the hotel room etc. Not for everyone, but for a favorite relative/sister/etc. 

[MedicMom]

I had a no-kid wedding. It wasn't price or not wanting kids there, but the venue was an upscale restaurant on a cliff. It was not child friendly. It also would have had no options for babysitting even if I had considered that. Most of DH's extended family refused to come, though part of that was that we had eloped months earlier and were not being married again in a church. The venue meant something very special and sentimental to me, and that's where we had the event, but it was not a place for children.

 

One of my sisters considered the pizza party for kids thing. Not one of the ten hotels she called would allow it.

[marbel]

<snip>

 

I think that where the graciousness has trouble is really that we tend to have a lot of implicit and deep-seated feelings about weddings and other similar events, and sometimes they don't fit in well with our more explicit thoughts or what we expect.  So, in a case like your sisters, perhaps it has always been just something she takes for granted that her close loved ones and relatives will be there, because that, for her, is really part of what weddings are about.  But at the same time, for some reason, she has this idea of a destination wedding - for some people it might just be that they see that sort of thing on tv and it appeals to them, and they tend to accept the idea that the bridal couple gets to choose their dream wedding without much thinking about it.

 

<snip>

 

Yes, I think you are right.  

 

Maybe I'm being too dramatic in my thinking, but really when a couple (or half a couple?) cannot see that contradiction... I am not sure he/she/they are mature enough for marriage.  kwim?  Life is a series of events in which reality hits us in the face and our dreams and ideals have to be set aside.  If a person can't set aside the wedding of her dreams for the practicality of family travel limitations, but insists he/she/they must have BOTH - a wedding in a far-off exotic place AND having all relatives and close friends there - I don't know, that doesn't bode well for the future, I think.

 

BTW I am pro-kids at weddings.  Our wedding was great fun partly because of the kids.  But I get that not all kids and their parents are well-behaved.  Plus my wedding was 4 hours, start to finish, in a place where kids didn't have to be super careful, and with fun easy food, and a pianist who good-naturedly took on all requests for fun danceable songs.   So, easy to have kids there.   That was the wedding my husband and I wanted though. 

[tm919]

I really hesitated to post since there is some heavy disapproval & many think it's selfish... but we had an adults-only wedding. We could only afford about 80 people, counting ourselves, which was a factor. But I would have loved to have kids there.

 

However, my husband did not want some SPECIFIC children there -- I didn't even know them but he was certain it was a terrible idea. He didn't want their parents there either -- but his parents invited them in advance of us ever having a guest list. And upon investigation my family actually voiced that they did NOT want to bring their children to a Friday night event in another state, so the children my husband didn't want there would have been the only ones! The easiest thing was to have no kids. We did get some nasty reactions from that family, like we'd deeply offended them... which I guess we did, but not as offended as if we'd uninvited them entirely I guess. I'll leave the story as, we got a card implying we were terrible people from them in lieu of a wedding gift.

 

Anyway, I never expect for my children to be invited. And I always expect that there is more to the story than I hear as a guest.

[Bluegoat]

Yes, I think you are right.  

 

Maybe I'm being too dramatic in my thinking, but really when a couple (or half a couple?) cannot see that contradiction... I am not sure he/she/they are mature enough for marriage.  kwim?  Life is a series of events in which reality hits us in the face and our dreams and ideals have to be set aside.  If a person can't set aside the wedding of her dreams for the practicality of family travel limitations, but insists he/she/they must have BOTH - a wedding in a far-off exotic place AND having all relatives and close friends there - I don't know, that doesn't bode well for the future, I think.

 

BTW I am pro-kids at weddings.  Our wedding was great fun partly because of the kids.  But I get that not all kids and their parents are well-behaved.  Plus my wedding was 4 hours, start to finish, in a place where kids didn't have to be super careful, and with fun easy food, and a pianist who good-naturedly took on all requests for fun danceable songs.   So, easy to have kids there.   That was the wedding my husband and I wanted though. 

 

Yeah, it does seem immature.

 

The wedding culture here in North America has become very strange though. 

 

I think this is why for me a more real approach is one I tend to see through my religious tradition, even though I know it doesn't apply to all people, I think perspective really depends on thinking in a deep way about what is happening at a marriage, why we have it at all, why we invite people at all. 

 

The public face of weddings is really the consumerist, private party model, and that is what people end up working with.  For many people, there is no place or time where they get asked to think about marriage and weddings at a deeper level, so all those feelings and expectations remain unconscious.  Some people think about such things on their own, but as far as places where couples get asked outright to think about that aspect, there aren't many.

[Junie]

I missed my cousin's wedding because it was for adults only -- in another state -- on dd6's first birthday.  It was horrible for me to choose whether to go to the wedding alone or stay home and celebrate the baby's birthday.  I debated over it for months.

 

In the end, I decided to stay home.  Actually for the sake of my older children.  Dd6 didn't know that it was her birthday -- if she were an only child we would have just celebrated on another day.  But my older children could have perceived me going to the wedding as choosing my cousin over my daughter.

 

I was actually more upset when I was told that I was not going to be invited to my other cousin's wedding.  They had a small venue and could only accommodate a small number of people.  The bride and groom decided to invite friends rather than family.  Fine.  But don't tell the family, imo.  Just don't send them an invitation.  Also, the wedding was something like 12 hours away.  It was very unlikely that I would have gone anyway.

[HS Mom in NC]

The mythology of rules is what strikes me most about this thread.  In the same posts people lament the rules not being followed or even understood and then insist there are consistent, accepted rules in our society about weddings and we have them to avoid the very problems that they're actually having. I suspect this is a result of sub-cultural isolation.  Where I live the vast majority of people over 30 are from other states all over the country. I can name, off the top of my head, someone who lives/lived here in my city that I personally know/have known (many have moved to other parts of the country)  from about 40 different states and a couple dozen countries.  We have large communities of immigrants from all over the Americas and Asia with a sprinkling of people from Africa. Europeans are very rare here.  I'm wondering if that's why some of us know the rules aren't really rules, but rather they're traditions some people hold while other people certainly don't.

Another thought I had is that maybe the people claiming there are rules about such things are more traditionalist in their thinking, preferences  and possibly even worship practices and those are presuppositions they bring to the situation.  I don't know, it's just a theory.  I'm just genuinely surprised that people still hold to the idea of actual rules even after multiple threads about wedding, parties and family norms that are clear evidence to the contrary.   I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier if there was some sort of clear cut pattern that everyone understood that helped us avoid a phone call/text/email to clarify something, but let's not get so in a dither that we build up the need to ask a question now and then as some great hardship. It's just an insignificant, momentary inconvenience after all.

The other thing that strikes me is the attitude that not attending a wedding is catastrophic. Somehow they've turned it into some deeply symbolic nature of the relationship.  Weird.  I'm really surprised at the level of significance people put on a ceremony and after party.  Sure, I've gone out of my way to attend the weddings of a close friends and family members, but if it didn't work out because of whatever, then it it didn't work out.  I wouldn't put all kinds of emotion into it if it didn't work out.  Likewise if a close family or friend couldn't attend I would assume they had their reasons.  Most people would make an effort and if they couldn't make it I'd chalk that up to, "Life happens." If someone wasn't willing to make an effort, then I wouldn't waste emotional/mental energy on it because it's not something I can control and it wouldn't contribute to anyone's well being. It's time to stop investing so much emotion and significance in wedding attendance.

[poppy]

Yeah, it does seem immature.

 

The wedding culture here in North America has become very strange though. 

 

I think this is why for me a more real approach is one I tend to see through my religious tradition, even though I know it doesn't apply to all people, I think perspective really depends on thinking in a deep way about what is happening at a marriage, why we have it at all, why we invite people at all. 

 

The public face of weddings is really the consumerist, private party model, and that is what people end up working with.  For many people, there is no place or time where they get asked to think about marriage and weddings at a deeper level, so all those feelings and expectations remain unconscious.  Some people think about such things on their own, but as far as places where couples get asked outright to think about that aspect, there aren't many.

 

An adults-only wedding = these people never really thought about what marriage means?  I reject the idea that most people are too shallow or foolish to think these things through.  People get engaged to be married, not to throw a wedding.  The wedding is not the marriage.  Elope, small wedding, huge wedding, elegant wedding, VFW hall wedding, whatever has no bearing whatsoever on whether a couple is mentally and emotionally well equipped for marriage.

[poppy]

I took it to mean some will decline, and I figured they were assuming some guests would proably be from out of town too.

 

I think it's not an unreasonable thing to say, if there are people with kids, and it is an adults only event, there will very likely to be some who decline.  If they are having to travel any real distance, or they have infants, it is much more likely they will decline.  The logistics of leaving a nursing baby for more than a short time are significant.

 

So - if it is important to the couple to have those people come, they need to face that one way or another.

 

Sure. I think it's fair to say, if it's adults only, some people (especially who have to travel) may decline. But that is a pretty far cry from the claim a few have made that an adults-only invite to parents with kids guarantees they can't / won't come.

 

[Junie]

The mythology of rules is what strikes me most about this thread.  In the same posts people lament the rules not being followed or even understood and then insist there are consistent, accepted rules in our society about weddings and we have them to avoid the very problems that they're actually having. I suspect this is a result of sub-cultural isolation.  Where I live the vast majority of people over 30 are from other states all over the country. I can name, off the top of my head, someone who lives/lived here in my city that I personally know/have known (many have moved to other parts of the country)  from about 40 different states and a couple dozen countries.  We have large communities of immigrants from all over the Americas and Asia with a sprinkling of people from Africa. Europeans are very rare here.  I'm wondering if that's why some of us know the rules aren't really rules, but rather they're traditions some people hold while other people certainly don't.

 

Another thought I had is that maybe the people claiming there are rules about such things are more traditionalist in their thinking, preferences  and possibly even worship practices and those are presuppositions they bring to the situation.  I don't know, it's just a theory.  I'm just genuinely surprised that people still hold to the idea of actual rules even after multiple threads about wedding, parties and family norms that are clear evidence to the contrary.   I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier if there was some sort of clear cut pattern that everyone understood that helped us avoid a phone call/text/email to clarify something, but let's not get so in a dither that we build up the need to ask a question now and then as some great hardship. It's just an insignificant, momentary inconvenience after all.

 

The other thing that strikes me is the attitude that not attending a wedding is catastrophic. Somehow they've turned it into some deeply symbolic nature of the relationship.  Weird.  I'm really surprised at the level of significance people put on a ceremony and after party.  Sure, I've gone out of my way to attend the weddings of a close friends and family members, but if it didn't work out because of whatever, then it it didn't work out.  I wouldn't put all kinds of emotion into it if it didn't work out.  Likewise if a close family or friend couldn't attend I would assume they had their reasons.  Most people would make an effort and if they couldn't make it I'd chalk that up to, "Life happens." If someone wasn't willing to make an effort, then I wouldn't waste emotional/mental energy on it because it's not something I can control and it wouldn't contribute to anyone's well being. It's time to stop investing so much emotion and significance in wedding attendance.

 

For me, it wasn't catastrophic that I didn't attend my cousin's wedding.  And it wasn't really about my relationship with my cousin.  I was looking forward to seeing relatives that I *never* get to see.  For instance, my grandmother's sister.  Going to the wedding was never about my cousin -- I figured that I would only get to spend a minute or two with her anyway.  It was about being together with extended family.

[Greta]

I really hesitated to post since there is some heavy disapproval & many think it's selfish... but we had an adults-only wedding. We could only afford about 80 people, counting ourselves, which was a factor. But I would have loved to have kids there.

 

However, my husband did not want some SPECIFIC children there -- I didn't even know them but he was certain it was a terrible idea. He didn't want their parents there either -- but his parents invited them in advance of us ever having a guest list. And upon investigation my family actually voiced that they did NOT want to bring their children to a Friday night event in another state, so the children my husband didn't want there would have been the only ones! The easiest thing was to have no kids. We did get some nasty reactions from that family, like we'd deeply offended them... which I guess we did, but not as offended as if we'd uninvited them entirely I guess. I'll leave the story as, we got a card implying we were terrible people from them in lieu of a wedding gift.

 

Anyway, I never expect for my children to be invited. And I always expect that there is more to the story than I hear as a guest.

 

 

Emphasis mine, obviously, because I thought this was a point worth emphasizing!  It's very true, very important, and yet so easy to forget.  You and others here have shared stories that make it clear that there are perfectly valid reasons for sometimes not inviting children.  

 

And I'm really sorry that those people sent you that tacky card.  :grouphug:  And sorry that your parents-in-law invited them when it wasn't their place to do so!

[Guest]

..

Edited September 16, 2016 by Heigh Ho

[ktgrok]

The mythology of rules is what strikes me most about this thread.  In the same posts people lament the rules not being followed or even understood and then insist there are consistent, accepted rules in our society about weddings and we have them to avoid the very problems that they're actually having. I suspect this is a result of sub-cultural isolation.  Where I live the vast majority of people over 30 are from other states all over the country. I can name, off the top of my head, someone who lives/lived here in my city that I personally know/have known (many have moved to other parts of the country)  from about 40 different states and a couple dozen countries. 

 

I don't know..I mean, there are actual rule books for it. It isn't Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings in Florida, it's just Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings. (or you could pick up a book by The Knot or whatever...any bride book or wedding book has the same rules in it for invitations, for the most part.)

 

If going to the time to throw a big formal event, it makes sense to look up how to address the invitations. Takes minutes. 

 

Now...people not knowing how to interpret them and assuming people not invited are implied...I have no answer for that. Other than we no longer teach the "rules" so no, I guess they don't apply anymore. But I think that is more generational than geographical. 

[heartlikealion]

Sitting here thinking to myself that I'm sure there are cases where both adults don't even care about attending lol. In that case, the person super eager to attend goes and the other watches the children (assuming this is possible and agreeable to both).

[marbel]

I don't know..I mean, there are actual rule books for it. It isn't Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings in Florida, it's just Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings. (or you could pick up a book by The Knot or whatever...any bride book or wedding book has the same rules in it for invitations, for the most part.)

 

If going to the time to throw a big formal event, it makes sense to look up how to address the invitations. Takes minutes. 

 

Now...people not knowing how to interpret them and assuming people not invited are implied...I have no answer for that. Other than we no longer teach the "rules" so no, I guess they don't apply anymore. But I think that is more generational than geographical. 

 

I think this is it.  Perhaps with the exception of immigrants from other countries, not just other areas of the US.   In my experience (lived in 4 states/3 regions of US, attended or otherwise been involved with weddings in a 4th region of US), the basics are the same:

 

hosts:

 - name all invited parties so the invitations are clear to guests

 

 - give all pertinent details 

 

 - give people at least 6 weeks notice so they can plan

 

guests

 - respond as quickly as possible, giving the number of guests attending (based on the invitation, not more!)

 

 - ask questions, don't assume (as in, don't assume your invitation includes children if they are not named)

 

I'm sure I missed something, am not trying to be comprehensive.  I just don't buy it that those basics are very different around the US.   Surely there are cultural differences in how the wedding "works" (for lack of a better word).    Catered dinner/community dinner/cake-and-punch, DJ/band/no music, open bar/cash bar, etc. 

[poppy]

Sitting here thinking to myself that I'm sure there are cases where both adults don't even care about attending lol. In that case, the person super eager to attend goes and the other watches the children (assuming this is possible and agreeable to both).

 

There was  poster before whose husband missed his brothers wedding because the couple didn't attend the wedding with their kids for their own reasons  .  And all I could I could think was why on earth didn't the husband just go alone?  (Unless he hates that brother, of course.)

 

I do know there are couples who wouldn't dream of going to an event without their partner.  I also know a man who will not attend work dinners or conferences unless his wife is invited as well (which is very rare in business).  But that type of thinking is just very foreign to me. I love my husband, we have fun together, but we are our own people.

[marbel]

There was  poster before whose husband missed his brothers wedding because the couple didn't attend the wedding with their kids for their own reasons  .  And all I could I could think was why on earth didn't the husband just go alone?  (Unless he hates that brother, of course.)

 

I do know there are couples who wouldn't dream of going to an event without their partner.  I also know a man who will not attend work dinners or conferences unless his wife is invited as well (which is very rare in business).  But that type of thinking is just very foreign to me. I love my husband, we have fun together, but we are our own people.

 

I'm always surprised by the number of people I run into here who don't do anything without their spouse.  No social events, not even sitting apart from the spouse at a dinner.  Shoot, I sit with my husband at dinner most nights of the week.  Can I sit next to someone else please?  :-)

 

Come to think of it, I have scandalized a few people by not sitting with my husband at our church's periodic congregational lunches.  A perfect place for mingling and getting to know new people, right?  A little more difficult if spouses are joined at the hip.  True, there is the person on the other side of me, but still.   

Edited September 15, 2016 by marbel

[heartlikealion]

I don't get that... yeah, just go alone if it's your brother. Maybe I am missing details.

 

I have gone to a wedding without dh. Just recently we each attended separate wakes/funerals while the other was either at work or home with the kids. I was pretty upset he didn't come to my high school reunion with me, though. I drove a few hours and arranged childcare to attend alone while he went to work. We both even go to the movies alone sometimes lol.

[Pam in CT]

Yeah, I don't personally relate to the everything-always-as-a-couple-together model either.... my husband and I regularly go alone to family events based on schedule / logistical issues.  I've even gone to family events on his side by myself, or with a kid or two in tow, when he's had business-related complications and been unable to.  I figure after all these years I'm part of that side of the family as well.

 

But, different families do it differently, that's cool too.

 

[Ellie]

I'm always surprised by the number of people I run into here who don't do anything without their spouse.  No social events, not even sitting apart from the spouse at a dinner.  Shoot, I sit with my husband at dinner most nights of the week.  Can I sit next to someone else please?  :-)

 

Come to think of it, I have scandalized a few people by not sitting with my husband at our church's periodic congregational lunches.  A perfect place for mingling and getting to know new people, right?  A little more difficult if spouses are joined at the hip.  True, there is the person on the other side of me, but still.   

 

When we go to things like church potlucks, we make it a point to sit with people we don't know. If we wanted to just sit and talk with each other, we'd stay home.

[Zock]

But let's be clear - their presence isn't really valued, or the kids would have been invited.  *That's* the reason for the insulted feeling.  It's not hard to provide childcare and a pizza for a group of kids, and if it's not affordable for the bride and groom, a provision for the parents to pay on-site sitters organized by the bride and groom isn't difficult to arrange.

You are so wrong it's laughable.

 

I work weddings as a profession.It is NOT cheap or easy to provide childcare or food for multiple children at a wedding. And the idea of the couple having to coordinate all the concerns of multiple parents for each to provide their own childcare onsite is a nightmare. 

 

You have no idea. 

[FaithManor]

Yup Ellie! Much as I adore the man, sometimes I need him to go speak Geek to someone else so I can speak quilt to other fabric addicts.

[Bluegoat]

An adults-only wedding = these people never really thought about what marriage means?  I reject the idea that most people are too shallow or foolish to think these things through.  People get engaged to be married, not to throw a wedding.  The wedding is not the marriage.  Elope, small wedding, huge wedding, elegant wedding, VFW hall wedding, whatever has no bearing whatsoever on whether a couple is mentally and emotionally well equipped for marriage.

 

No, I did not say that people who throw adults only weddings have never thought about marriage.

 

I said that some people - like the ones in the post I was responding to - seem to have an inconsistent set of expectations about weddings, and that was perhaps because some of their expectations were fairly unconscious.  To expect attendance by close relatives at an expensive destination wedding suggests something that hasn't been thought through.  To expect out of town friends with an infant to come and stay overnight suggests something hasn't been thought through.  If people really want to have a celebration where these people will be almost sure to come, they need to avoid creating a scenario where that will be difficult for them.

 

I do think that there is a lot people unsure about what the point of weddings are at this particular moment in time, and often that is quite explicit - a lot of people don't bother with it at all.  Weddings have become big business in a way that often undermines the point of the thing, and people get caught up in the consumer message.  For many people, their more fundamental ideas about marriage are something they don't really ever discuss with anyone.  That isn't quite the same as whether they have thought through getting married.

[Bluegoat]

The mythology of rules is what strikes me most about this thread.  In the same posts people lament the rules not being followed or even understood and then insist there are consistent, accepted rules in our society about weddings and we have them to avoid the very problems that they're actually having. I suspect this is a result of sub-cultural isolation.  Where I live the vast majority of people over 30 are from other states all over the country. I can name, off the top of my head, someone who lives/lived here in my city that I personally know/have known (many have moved to other parts of the country)  from about 40 different states and a couple dozen countries.  We have large communities of immigrants from all over the Americas and Asia with a sprinkling of people from Africa. Europeans are very rare here.  I'm wondering if that's why some of us know the rules aren't really rules, but rather they're traditions some people hold while other people certainly don't.

 

Another thought I had is that maybe the people claiming there are rules about such things are more traditionalist in their thinking, preferences  and possibly even worship practices and those are presuppositions they bring to the situation.  I don't know, it's just a theory.  I'm just genuinely surprised that people still hold to the idea of actual rules even after multiple threads about wedding, parties and family norms that are clear evidence to the contrary.   I'm not saying it wouldn't be easier if there was some sort of clear cut pattern that everyone understood that helped us avoid a phone call/text/email to clarify something, but let's not get so in a dither that we build up the need to ask a question now and then as some great hardship. It's just an insignificant, momentary inconvenience after all.

 

The other thing that strikes me is the attitude that not attending a wedding is catastrophic. Somehow they've turned it into some deeply symbolic nature of the relationship.  Weird.  I'm really surprised at the level of significance people put on a ceremony and after party.  Sure, I've gone out of my way to attend the weddings of a close friends and family members, but if it didn't work out because of whatever, then it it didn't work out.  I wouldn't put all kinds of emotion into it if it didn't work out.  Likewise if a close family or friend couldn't attend I would assume they had their reasons.  Most people would make an effort and if they couldn't make it I'd chalk that up to, "Life happens." If someone wasn't willing to make an effort, then I wouldn't waste emotional/mental energy on it because it's not something I can control and it wouldn't contribute to anyone's well being. It's time to stop investing so much emotion and significance in wedding attendance.

 

 

But isn't someone not making an effort in a close relationship likely to be hurtful?  Most people don't just shake that kind of thing off, if they really think that is what has happened.

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't know..I mean, there are actual rule books for it. It isn't Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings in Florida, it's just Miss Manners' Guide to Weddings. (or you could pick up a book by The Knot or whatever...any bride book or wedding book has the same rules in it for invitations, for the most part.)

 

If going to the time to throw a big formal event, it makes sense to look up how to address the invitations. Takes minutes. 

 

Now...people not knowing how to interpret them and assuming people not invited are implied...I have no answer for that. Other than we no longer teach the "rules" so no, I guess they don't apply anymore. But I think that is more generational than geographical. 

 

I think the fact that there are books/website on the topic (which don't always agree, by the way) is an indication that there never has been agreement on general rules across the country and across generations.  The books are an attempt to create such rules but the generation that used to agree and abide by them in US is a figment of people's imagination. There never has been one that generally agreed on that.  Those book are written by and for boxcheckers and rule followers, people trying to create a sense of traditionalism, and generally liturgical types; they aren't a compilation of what is or was generally accepted across generations and regions. The people living in more isolated subcultures haven't always known this-that's the problem with isolated subcultures; they can create a distorted reality because of the lack of otherness within them. People in subcultures that regularly encounter different subcultural norms and varied socioeconomic groups are usually well aware of how presumptuous those books are and how silly it is to try and create a unified norm over such things in a nation as large and varied as ours. 

 

As for the addressing the invitations example you give, there are plenty of examples here at how there simply are no rules for interpretation even among socially conscientious invitees.  You can keep saying the books solve the problem but the books on their own are not a higher authority than anything else.  In some subcultures it's understood you only bring the people in your household listed on the envelope.  In other subcultures the envelope is addressed  to the head of the household and it's understood everyone in the household is invited.  (Did you read the posts up thread?) Some consider it rude to bring someone not on the invitation.  Others consider it rude to treat a family as anything other than a single unit.  Why should one be the accepted rule and the other not? What's inherently more moral or polite about one norm over the other? 

 

American culture tends to be bad at differentiating between what is and what the want it to be. The ability to switch back appropriately can cause unnecessary friction. Simply beginning with the assumption that not everyone is motivated by the same things, to do the same things, and that the hierarchy of values and norms are different within different families goes a long way.  Being frustrated that everyone doesn't do it my way is as pointless as wishing the sky were green.

 

And that doesn't even begin to address the changes in social norms within subcultures.  Social norms change all the time.  Just about every generation has had its lamenters who pine for the good old days when things were done properly, but alas! these young people/immigrants/new politicians/educators/celebrities/technological developments have made things worse and now it's all going to h3ll in a handbasket.   We all know that the only constant is change, but some people have a really hard time adapting to it and applying it.

[ktgrok]

Or...there are accepted rules, followed by the majority, but some don't know them. Not every stops fully at a stop sign, but it is still the rule :)

[FaithManor]

I do agree with Bluegoat that many young couples are questioning the purpose ofnweddings and receptions on the whole.

 

Even a simple family affair can be expensive because stuff is just simlly put, expensive. Unless someone has a nice backyard you can use and it doesn't rain, you pay to use something somewhere. The RCC and Orthodox hsve a tradition of members getting to use their facilities, but due to increasing maintenance and custodial costs most denominations are charging members and it usually something in the mid three digit numbers too. Those that are not affiliated with a religious group have to find a park, hotel, hall that is available and usually that comes with a lot of restrictions and again rental fees. No matter where you host it you have to have enough chairs for everyone so that can mean renting. If you serve food and beverages, you have to cover the tables with something to protect the tops, and then provide table service even if it is potluck and since most families aren't all congregated locally, it probably is not potluck unless it is at a church and the local health codes allow it.

 

Even for the least consumer oriented couple it costs money and generally a significant sum. I understand why some are saying no.

 

In times past, the Laura Ingalls scenario was common. Put on your Sunday best. Go see the preacher, thebpriest, the sheriff, the magistrate. Say or sign whatever had to be said or signed, go back to ma and pa's for a quick meal and homemade cake, go to the new cabin, the end. Maybe we will slowly go back to that.

 

But before villifying hosts for the expensive ta da wedding understand that for everyone couple that eants it, about five or six more feel pressured by relatives, friends, and local tradition and culture to have it when they would rather not.

 

I loved coordinating and decorating weddings, making each one uniquely special. But the crazy of all the relatives and friends was willy wonkers so the not fun part of my job was to keep it away from the important people as much as possible. It's a lot like herding cats!

[Bluegoat]

yes, I totally agree that many people feel pressured by family to have a blow-out wedding that they can't afford and don't want. Sometimes I think that pressure comes from a change in the way such things are run that makes a huge extended family wedding less affordable, and the older people in the family are just not that up on those factors.  In other cases it seems to be expectations driven by wedding magazines that mean the couple expects something well beyond what would have been common in the past.

 

Around here, there seem to have been two different models in previous generations for middle class families and anyone less well off than that.  IN one, there was an expectation of inviting everyone in the community, but the community facilities were used, and everyone in the community pitched in.  Not only to the wedding, but to set the couple up with the basics.  This was common with groups like the Catholics or the Mennonites (and the latter still operate this way.)

 

The other model was what was common in my family - the wedding might be somewhat smaller, probably just family and closer friends and family friends.  Wedding at church or home with reception in a cheap hall or at home, often catered, minimally, by a friend or family.  Quite often there would be no wedding dress, and certainly no party favours or anything like that.

 

Some had private weddings too.

 

In all cases, what the couple wanted wasn't a big deal, because the options were just fairly minimal.  There were some expectations about who was invited and such, and unless people had a private wedding, there was only so much one had to spend on them, and most people's weddings looked pretty similar.

 

People who were getting into upper middle class and above would have more options for nicer venues and dancing and more/better food, but things otherwise still looked quite similar.

 

ETA - it seems like it all changed in the 80's with people wanting to rent tuxes, have hotel weddings, and big dresses and such, from all economic groups.

Edited September 15, 2016 by Bluegoat

[MinivanMom]

I think the fact that there are books/website on the topic (which don't always agree, by the way) is an indication that there never has been agreement on general rules across the country and across generations.  The books are an attempt to create such rules but the generation that used to agree and abide by them in US is a figment of people's imagination. There never has been one that generally agreed on that.

 

*snip*

 

I grew up in laid-back California, but got married in the deep-South. Yes, there are huge differences in cultural norms regarding weddings. I was reamed by quite a few bless-your-heart type Southern ladies for all the things I did "wrong". I had never heard of any of their "rules". In fact, as far as I know, none of those "rules" are in any etiquette book. What all those ladies had in common with each other was that they had lived their entire lives in the same small corner of the South. 

 

When we start ascribing moral judgments to different cultural practices (they don't value the community . . . they don't value children . . . they don't understand the purpose of marriage), then it's probably time to get outside our own little bubble. If it's not your wedding, then live and let live.

[zoobie]

I grew up in laid-back California, but got married in the deep-South. Yes, there are huge differences in cultural norms regarding weddings. I was reamed by quite a few bless-your-heart type Southern ladies for all the things I did "wrong". I had never heard of any of their "rules". In fact, as far as I know, none of those "rules" are in any etiquette book. What all those ladies had in common with each other was that they had lived their entire lives in the same small corner of the South.

 

When we start ascribing moral judgments to different cultural practices (they don't value the community . . . they don't value children . . . they don't understand the purpose of marriage), then it's probably time to get outside our own little bubble. If it's not your wedding, then live and let live.

Well, bless their hearts. One of the rules of etiquette is not to comment on someone else's.