Well, I've certainly managed to provoke a discussion :). I appreciate all of the different insights. Let me just start by saying that I'm certain the bride's decision not to invite children to the reception was not meant to hurt me specifically and was certainly not about me. I didn't think that I gave that impression but it looks like I must have. I'm hurt because I won't be able to bring my son to the wedding. I wanted him to be included, to dress him up & show him off, to let him see his cousins all dressed up...whatever my reasons, there they are & they are mine. This is going to be a large wedding and there are a lot of children in the extended families. Mine is not the only child that will be excluded. And I would NEVER ask nor expect her to make an exception for my son! It's her day, it should happen as she wants it to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm still upset that he will be. Am I being irrational? Maybe but that's how I feel. And I'm making the assumption that my niece told my mom because she wanted word to get back to me. I could be totally wrong about that. Sue36- there would not have been a confrontation. I'm not like that. If I WAS that sort of person I would have had my niece on the phone last night. As I said, I understand her reasons. But I'm still hurt. Momj47- we did attend a wedding with our son when he was about 18 months (specifically invited with child). He ran us ragged and it was certainly a day spent on alert rather than enjoying the event. I'm trying to look at this as a bright side to the "no kids" decision for my niece's wedding. And not having to be in mom mode for a few hours will be nice. Bunglogrl- how to put this. My family does not have the same "respect your elders" policy that yours does. It's rather a "my way or the highway". My mother has always been accomodating, never making waves and doing everything to keep the peace. As a result family members feel free to speak to her disrespectfully and basically tell her what's to be done. I'm the only one that calls them on it. The accepted method of communication within my family seems to be the grapevine method. She complains to you, you complain to somebody else & eventually word gets back to the complainee. I hate this, absolutely loathe it. I'm sure that in 4 months I can find a babysitter. Of course I suspect that my husband is delighted with the idea of skipping the wedding & not having to be subjected to my extended family for a few hours. Lowspark- you're absolutely right, it has become the norm for parents to expect to take their children everywhere. But what I've noticed is that lots of these children are brought but not supervised. There are many times at the playground where I'm the only parent on top of their child. I'm not saying that I'm mother of the year, just that as a consequence a lot of these children are out of control. And formal functions seem no different than the playground. At a christening a few weeks ago there was only one other child there with a parent that was keeping him in line. The rest of the children ran wild through the restaurant, the bar, etc. But both you & mrsmarv seem to "get" me so I must be getting my point across somehow. I think? Nina

I am sure Talley Sue is correct about what Crane's and other authorities say. And I get the point about simplicity, hosts only listed on the invitation, and the invitation not being about credits. However, I can tell you that we get dozens of wedding invitations every year, and they all give the groom's parents' names, too. The only exceptions are the ones from much older couples who are issuing the invitations themselves, or from couples who style the invitation "Together with their parents/families, Petunia Smith and Cuthbert Jones request the pleasure of your company as they are married ...." The latter formulation seems to be when there is some sort of complicated family circumstance regarding lots of stepparents or something. Even the ones that have, in every other respect, the most formal wording, still include the grooms' parents' names: "Mr. and Mrs. Zebulon Smith request the honour of your presence at the marriage of their daughter, Petunia Ann, to Cuthbert Arthur Jones, son of Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Jones ...." I imagine that in many cases, both sets of parents are hosting, or at least contributing money. But even where (as the formal wording indicates) only the brides' parents are, they always name the groom's parents, too. My point is that even though this is not correct per the etiquette rule, it is so firmly established a convention in my community that to leave off the grooms' parents names would be considered a major insult on the part of the bride's parents and would be taken as a real humiliation by the groom's parents. I'm not arguing the etiquette rule; I'm just saying that it doesn't end the analysis.

Beautiful!! I soooo love the colors and swirls, I want to do something with swirls but need to practice, it's not as easy as it looks. Great job!

Interesting how many think this is tacky. I guess it is tacky mentioning gifts on a wedding invitation. But, we ARE going to give a gift and why not something that the couple can use? If they need money, then just give what you would have spent. I think some do not like giving money because they think if they give the "crystal vase" no one will know how much they actually spent on it. I love the idea of a registry. As pointed out, you can spend a few dollars up to thousands. Your choice. It is what they WANT. My husband was funny once. He didn't like the shade of green for a high chair I was buying. He didn't get the concept of the registry and thought I should pick a different color. Bottom line, give what you can afford and make no excuses for it.