Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Suffer the Little Children



Or is it "Make the Little Children Suffer"?

While the great Kilt Kwestion floats above us in the stratosphere, a greater issue has just come up, and one more significant in terms of our budget. All things considered, the two bridesmaids who currently know about this blog will likely share in the same opinion on this, but I have at least one bridesmaid (should she agree, and I mean Ressler) for whom this issue would be an important one.

What about the children?

Now, before you immediately post a comment, bear with me as I go through the discussion I just had with Trevor. We need to get (a) venue(s) booked ASAP... we're aiming for a July 2012 wedding and those dates should start filling up at most places right about nowish. At this point, it's completely possible that we're going to end up having to book a venue I haven't seen in person yet... which is annoying but potentially necessary. In looking at and comparing prices on venues (most of which require you to use their in-house catering services), we quickly realized that we needed to have a rough total of the number of guests. That's what we figured out tonight.

Earlier today I queried, "Do you think we have to pay the whole $25.95 or whatever per person for dinner thing even if the person in question is a picky 8 year old who will eat half a plateful or a 1 year old who will only eat a handful of crackers?" This is a horrifying thought... paying upwards of $25.00 for a person who eats $2.00 worth of food?! Trevor agreed that this was an excellent point... how much of a person is a child under 12 worth to a catering service?

Now, it's possible that we can work out deals with caterers and that's precisely the kind of wheeling and dealing in which my fiancé (there it is... the first time I've used that word... welcome to my new insanity) is gifted. So that's what we're going to explore first.

HOWEVER. We each did our rough guest lists and noted all children under the age of 12. Ready for it?

50

FIFTY

FIVE-OH

Fiddy.

Fifty kids. Kids belonging to my cousins, his cousins, my friends, his friends, friends of our families... fifty. That's just... that's a lot of freakin' kids. And, though you won't believe this, they're mostly GOOD kids... like, I didn't put down any kids that make me think, "Oh dear God, NO." But that's still a lot of little mouths to feed.

Then Trevor came up with the "essential" versus the "non-essential" kids idea. No non-essential kids. Okay, so... what makes a kid "essential," then? He said, "Only kids who are part of the wedding party or in the immediate families." That takes us down to my niece, his two boys, and his two nephews... so, five. And then we thought, "Well, and maybe the children of members of the wedding party." Which would take us up to (I think) eight.

You're both thinking this is reasonable. Here are my issues.

My extended family lives out of town and will have to trek to Columbus and stay the night... so my cousins who have kids would either have to get overnight baby sitters or, more likely, just not come. And you know what? The cousins this would affect? I WANT them to come. That's the irony... the cousins unaffected by this are the cousins I would prefer to have stay at home. That totally blows.

And my other issue? This means Braedon and Murren Kelly couldn't come. And that is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. I told Trevor, those two are like my niece and nephew... not like "non-essential" children! And they live in Georgia, so if they can't come, Keith and Erika aren't coming and I really, really, really want Keith and Erika to come! And Braedon and Murren, for that matter! Also, I have other out of town friends I want there who wouldn't be able to be there if it meant finding someone to watch their children for several days. In other words, I feel like I'm the one whose guest list gets royally screwed over by this whole "non-essential" children idea. His cousins and friends all live in Columbus; they just need to find a sitter who can manage their kids for a couple hours... my people have to try to make accommodations that, I'm afraid, they ultimately just won't bother to make. And I hate that.

So, what do you think? And remember, I LIKE kids... and, more importantly, I like my family and friends who have kids and I want them at my wedding.

Oh, why can't weddings be free?!

5 comments:

  1. In someways its all in how you address the invitations. If you invite The So&So Family then you're inviting the kids. If you invite Mr & Mrs So&SO it's a signal that it's them & not the kids.

    The other way you could go - hire babysitters. You hire a few people that sit & watch these kids. Sometimes if you have guests that have teenagers, you can bribe them.

    But then again, keep in mind, I don't like kids and other than the ones that will carry your train and test your food I don't know how many are needed for pie....

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think you can be choosy about the kids to invite - if you want to invite the related kids and not the others, go for it. Then you can sneak in a handful of the desired others (ressler's kids, M & B...). Once everyone realizes that the invited kids are all relatives, they can't get snarky about why their kids weren't invited. Can they? (Maybe they can.) (But they shouldn't.)

    I was going to suggest the babysitter thing too. I feel like I've heard of this: places letting you rent a room to keep the kids in during the reception. Might wind up being just as expensive as buying them plates, though.

    I'm please to report that I've finally figured out how to make myself appear as Jenny. Now I can comment with abandon.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oh, and also, I'm working under the assumption that if you invite me, you're inviting my dog.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Did you turn the comments off on the following stripey-dress-related post on purpose? Well, I'll just get around THAT by commenting HERE.

    My comment is: Love.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Um... Jenny? ERIKA was able to comment above... I'm just sayin'...

    ReplyDelete