AIBU I don't want kids at our upcoming wedding....ish

Ok,
Am I being unreasonable? My fiancé and I love kids, we love our nieces and nephews and all that BUT we are paying for our wedding ourselves and I have told everyone the there will be no kids allowed at our wedding except ours who are in the wedding. We also said that if people (adults) are not able to attend we will back fill with kids.

For almost everyone this was fine. Cue: FMIL she had a melt down about “her grand babies this and that” Y’all they are teens and pre teens, they’re not tiny and arrangements have been made. Every plate /seat has to be paid for and the exception is we get free 4 highchairs for under two. I had a very close family friend refuse to come because she couldn’t bring her kids. I said actually they’re under two you absolutely can bring them, she still declined. I was like ummm ok. Then MIL said she’d pay for the kids to be there, but when I thanked her for her generosity and told her how many kids, she cut me off and said “no just my grand kids, not your side of the family” I told her no. I told her “you can’t do for some and not all so we will stick to the original plan” She wasn’t happy.

So … Am I being unreasonable?

2 Likes

No way. It is your wedding, your rules.

6 Likes

Your wedding. You and your partner are the only people who matter.

6 Likes

Thank you :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Not fair to tell the kids that a Bridezilla is giving a party and they don’t get to come and see one :slight_smile:

Only joking. It is your wedding, you should have it like you want to - especially as you are paying for that.

2 Likes

Begin as you mean to go on. This is the time to set boundaries. It’s your wedding, the two of you are in agreement, and that’s the end of the discussion.

1 Like

I think having a child free wedding is totally okay, regardless of the reasoning behind it

3 Likes

I think it’s unreasonable to allow no children, except for… and have a long list of exceptions. That seems just capricious and unfair and a weird decision designed to alienate your guests. How are planning to “backfill” with kids? How are parents supposed to RSVP if they don’t know if they should bring their kids or not? How do you decide which guests get to bring their kids to “backfill”, like If 5 people decline do you have 2 families with 2 kids each come and then another family can only bring 1 of their 2 kids? How are your guests going to feel after paying for a sitter and everything, they go to your wedding and see other guests brought their kids because you had some cancellations?

That just seems like a huge headache to me. If your goal is to save money then just have no kids no matter what and you can save a bit on headcount.

1 Like

Not exactly unreasonable, but I think it’s a bit rude.

Not allowing kids is usually done because they can be noisy, cry a lot (if they’re small) and run around (if they’re not so small), NOT solely for cost reasons.
So you’re proposing a very weird set of rules that allows kids under 2 - who are the most likely to cry loudly and not enjoy the party at all - while barring teenagers!
I attended a couple of cousin’s weddings when I was a teen (16 to 17 years old) and I’d be offended and probably would have lost contact with those cousins if I was excluded.

It sounds like you don’t care too much about the kids in question, in which case it does make sense not inviting them. But realize that not inviting people mainly because of cost, when they would otherwise be close enough to be your guests, is in fact rude.

2 Likes

You may have missed the point where I said ALL parents were on board with our decision and understood. They had already made alternate plans for the kids in question. The reason why I didn’t mind the smaller kids is because A) I get so many for no charge and B) the parents in question just moved back to the state and everyone that could watch them will be at the wedding (family). We both have large families and had to make very hard decisions who could come physically. I said the back fill comment because it’s FOUR days before Christmas so therefore I understand that some people may not be able to get off work (on a Tuesday) or have alternate travel plans even though we let everyone know a year in advance for that exact reasoning. So so far there have been a few that can not come due to travel etc. So more likely than not the children will be able to attend after all. It had nothing to do with IF I want them there or like them, I absolutely do want them there. But I also wanted to afford adult family members especially our out of state guests the first chance. These are people we don’t get to see on a normal basis. These kids see us all the time and really don’t care about a wedding, they’re at the age of video games are life. I was irritated at the fact that my MIL would make such a big deal without even talking to the parents or us and then saying she’ll pay for those kids but not everyone. I don’t do “favorites” it’s all or none. That simple.

1 Like

Ok first off, I am not allowing a bunch of under two, I am allowing up to four as those are not charged for. And only two are coming because they are babies, and the parents just moved back and the rest of the family who would “babysit” will be at the wedding. Secondly, I am not exactly where you get that I “don’t care” for the kids in question. I absolutely do care for them, I see them on a regular basis. But as I explained to RR8 we both have large families and his family mainly is from another state so we wanted to afford them the opportunity first as we don’t get to see them much. Lastly, Im glad at 16-17 years old you would’ve been offended, but I personally asked these kids and they weren’t too thrilled about going to a wedding at all. They are all about video games and all of that. So that’s where they’re at. But as explained, if the out of state people can not come, the kids will be able too, and it’s a simple phone call to the parents letting them know that if they want them to attend they can. All the parents are already excited to have a kid free night out anyhow. My main “issue” was that my mother in law was up in arms without even talking to the parents in question or even asking our reasoning. Once I told her, she offered to pay for just her side of the families kids. I’m old school, you do for all or you don’t do at all, so if you’re going to offer to pay for the 6 extra plates, great, but you’re not going to just pay for 3. That is “a bit rude” In fact this whole thing could’ve been avoided had she asked the parents and heard their replies. Or even just simply asked us what our reasoning was. Because again, we are paying for the whole wedding.

I thought from your initial post that you didn’t have a close relationship with the kids, as you didn’t state otherwise and you implied that you didn’t want them at the wedding. But okay, I understand better now.
I still think it’s a weird set of rules, allowing (up to) 2 babies but not inviting the older kids and teenagers. What your MIL suggested would also be weird/rude (I’m not sure if it’s ruder, or just a different type), but it sounds like you posed it to her as a cost issue, when it’s a combination of cost and convenience/interests of the people involved. And obviously, the info about me was just as an example, it may not apply to your case.

I guess I don’t understand why you’re asking if you’re being unreasonable if you’re so sure everyone is cool with your plan.

If you told your MIL you weren’t inviting kids (and defining kids as “under 2 ok, 16 not” which is not how anyone else defines “kids at wedding”) because of the cost, well she offered to help with the cost. Maybe she thought your parents could pay for your side and then you can have kids without worrying about the cost.

And you can’t accuse her of “playing favorites” when you’re inviting kids if they’re from out of town and not if they see you all the time and like video games. I would struggle to understand that too.

Can you choose to interpret your MIL’s offer charitably so you’re not mad at your MIL over this?