Disney to bar children under 10 from eating at Victoria & Albert's

[crazy4wdw]

From the Orlando Sentinel:

No young children at Victoria & Albert's
posted by Scott Powers on Jan 4, 2008 11:04:24 AM

Victoria & Albert's to young children: please eat somewhere else.

In a move to create at least one intimate, adult dining establishment on its property, Walt Disney World has banned young children from its swankiest restaurant, Victoria & Albert's at the Grand Floridian Spa and Resort.

Effective Jan. 1, children under the age of 10 are not permitted in the AAA five-diamond restaurant known for its Iranian caviar and Muscovy duck.

Not counting the adult-only policies at nightclubs at Downtown Disney's Pleasure Island, the move is the first time Disney World has set restrictions against young children for a dining or entertainment establishment.

Disney spokeswoman Kim Prunty said the move is being made because of guests' requests. Victoria & Albert's has long been cool toward young children, offering a fixed-price menu and no children's dishes.

"We find that our guests are really looking for an intimate experience and an adult-oriented atmosphere, and we want to make sure we meet those expectations," Prunty said.

 

[mitros]

Got no problem wit dat!

 

[OKW Lover]

I'm amazed that people would even think that V&A's would be suitable for a child.

 

[annie1995]

I totally agree with the decision!

 

[Uncleromulus]

Couple of threads on Restaurants Board about this--most seem to think it's a good move.

 

[Metro West]

I totally agree with the decision!

 

[adabob]

Since that i have never have been and probably will never go in the rest of my life This doesnt bother me at all.

But since it is a very fancy restuarant i think that it is ok for younger kids to not be allowed in.

 

[Lovin' Lorne]

Sounds good to me. Considering the $$$, you should be able to dine there in peace and quiet and without running the risk of having little Bobby at the next table pitch a fit because "she won't stop looking at me!!!"

 

[mitros]

Sounds good to me. Considering the $$$, you should be able to dine there in peace and quiet and without running the risk of having little Bobby at the next table pitch a fit because "she won't stop looking at me!!!"

 

[ConcKahuna]

Since V&A's is one of the only restaurants on Disney property without a kids menu, it was already discouraged in a way.

 

[PBB]

GOOD !

My wife and I were on our 20th anniversary at Disney's Vero Beach a few years ago and we ate Sonya's which was advertised as "rich and romantic atmosphere" The dinner portion of the evening was ruined by 2 tables with kids running around the dining room. The parents and Grandparents just sat at watched without saying anything. One kid broke a harmonica for crying out loud.

As I left, I spoke to the manager whose response was "well this is Disney and we don't want to alienate kids" Asking a parent to control their kid in an upscale restaurant is not alienating children. The sad thing was we walked through the family restaurant that was empty.

Too bad parents don't consider others over their children !

 

[TXTurtles]

Too bad parents don't consider others over their children !

And I would hazard that most who take their kids to such restaurants aren't even considering their kids above themselves. Seriously, what about "sit in chairs in a boring environment with stuffy food wearing your nicest (usually itchiest and most uncomfortable) clothes while the adults talk" says good times for kids? In my experience as a teacher children who are enjoying themselves DON'T cry, yell, throw things, or feel the need to run around screaming. Yes, there are probably a handful of children in the world who enjoy stuffy dining. They enjoy getting dressed up and sitting quietly and trying strange food. Good for them. However this is a VERY small percentage of the child population and most children who are dragged to stuffy dining are NOT part of that percentage. And the parents ignore the very clear signs that their child is having to make their own fun, usually in ways that are directly counter to the stuff dining atmosphere.

Another thought - I really do believe that children should be exposed (in small doses) to situations that call for control and teach them how to behave appropriately while in formal situations. The occasional trip to a multi-star restaurant, theatre, or wedding is a great learning tool. But why in heaven's name would you think that a trip to WDW is the best time to learn that? Heck, when I was in High School I would have flipped had my family decided that we'd spend a portion of our potential park-visiting time sitting in a stuffy restaurant. Again, if the stuffy dining experience really appeals to your kid on the same level as wandering the parks does then more power to you, go to those restaurants and enjoy. However if your child is in the more normal range then please don't subject the to the stuffy dining experience. If they need a quiet place to decompress after the over-stimulation of the park then please try the hotel. It doesn't even have to be YOUR hotel. There are many nice little nooks in the Poly, Y&B, etc that are open to non-guests and WONDERFUL places for a child to rest. Trust me, if the child is having a melt-down in a restaurant it's NOT because they're enjoying themselves. Listen to the kids you chose to have and please, if just for this trip, put their comfort and wishes above (or at least on par) with your own.

 

[micki7337]

On the subject of Victoria and Albert's. I applaud Disney on their decision for no one under 10.

BUT.................

Here is where I have the issue some here have started to bash parents with kids. just because some parents allow their children to be obnoxious and act like little crazies. This does not mean that all parents will allow this to happen or that all children are this way. I am sorry that some have had bad experiences with children at restaurants. My children are well behaved and have eaten in many nice restaurants at WDW and yes some times they act like kids but It is WDW. Wasn't it made for kids. Wasn't it Walt Disney's vision that he created a place for parents to go with their Children to enjoy. So having a few restaurants that are for Adults only is OK but if one goes to WDW you must know that children will be there.
As a proud father of 3 children I love my kids like all parents do and they are not always the best behaved and they act as kids as I have said before. does this mean that we should now have children only sections in restaurants not to disturb non-child parties. If that is the case then we should make teen only areas, single party only areas, etc......... Sounds like some need to learn tolerance especially when in WDW or in life in general. If this was the case this world would be a better place for every one.

 

[ToddS]

As the father of two boys (a two-an-a-half-year-old and a three-month-old) and despite never having eaten at V&A, I'd say this is a great move.

We've had plenty of nice meals at Artist's Point and Flying Fish marred by inconsiderate parents. We've had very good luck with our own oldest son at some of the nicer Disney restaurants -- he loves to eat, luckily for us, even if he has to sit still for awhile to do it! On that one visit to California Grill when he was just not having any of it, my wife and I took turns eating dinner while the other was in the lobby with him. Too bad it had to be that meal, but those are the chances you take when you bring a child that young to that kind of restaurant! In such an establishment, your number one concern should be the other diners, number two you might want to think about not putting the staff in an uncomfortable spot dealing with complaints from those diners, number three should be your kids, and yourselves last! And I think TXTurtles is definitely on the mark when suggesting that parents that would subject their kids to a dinner at V&A might not be considering the kids at all. Love that post, BTW!

It's too bad Disney has to make rules like this for folks that don't have their own self-awareness or good sense. On a somewhat lesser scale, it's not unlike them having to upgrade the dress code at the upper-tier restaurants from "resort casual" to "business casual" or whatever they're calling it now. In practice, it's still barely resort casual, no matter what they call it, but obviously a significant percentage of guests couldn't be trusted to make a sensible, considerate call on what is appropriate dress for a half-decent restaurant, and hence the "upgrade."

Wow, that sure turned into a rant. Sorry!

Now, about those ECV's...

 

[Lovin' Lorne]

It's too bad Disney has to make rules like this for folks that don't have their own self-awareness or good sense.

Not just Disney, ToddS. That's what drives me crazy about people today. The self awareness - good sense part. Disclaimers have to be flashed during the car commercials, because some moron might run right out to see if his Tundra can really drive up the side of the Grand Canyon. Some guy in a commercial runs into a sliding glass door because it's so clean, but Windex has to put "Do Not Attempt" because some loon might keep cleaning and running through the door because, wow it really is clean. They're there because the companies need to protect their a**es when some idiot does it and then tries to sue because no one told them it was dangerous or that they could end up hurt or dead. Where did common sense go?? Did it die somewhere in the late 70's early 80's?

NOBODY in this country seems to want to take responsibility for their own actions or the actions of their kids. It's always someone else's fault that they're stupid or inconsiderate. It's the few who have no clue or just plain don't care as long as they get what THEY want who ruin it for us all. Limits are being put on people all the time because a small portion of the population can't be trusted to make the right call.

Or in this case, to be trusted not to drag their disruptive kids to a $125 a pop restaurant.


How's that for a rant?

 

[mitros]

Not just Disney, ToddS. That's what drives me crazy about people today. The self awareness - good sense part. Disclaimers have to be flashed during the car commercials, because some moron might run right out to see if his Tundra can really drive up the side of the Grand Canyon. Some guy in a commercial runs into a sliding glass door because it's so clean, but Windex has to put "Do Not Attempt" because some loon might keep cleaning and running through the door because, wow it really is clean. They're there because the companies need to protect their a**es when some idiot does it and then tries to sue because no one told them it was dangerous or that they could end up hurt or dead. Where did common sense go?? Did it die somewhere in the late 70's early 80's?

NOBODY in this country seems to want to take responsibility for their own actions or the actions of their kids. It's always someone else's fault that they're stupid or inconsiderate. It's the few who have no clue or just plain don't care as long as they get what THEY want who ruin it for us all. Limits are being put on people all the time because a small portion of the population can't be trusted to make the right call.

Or in this case, to be trusted not to drag their disruptive kids to a $125 a pop restaurant.


How's that for a rant?

Outstanding! It's as if I wrote your post myself. Or are you phsycic and you read my mind?

 

[serendipity]

That's AWESOME!

 

[Uncleromulus]

To LOvin' Lornes excellent post I'd only add that things are that way mostly because our Court system allows it to be so.
Seems they can always find some soft-headed Judge or 12 clueless jurors to support those sorts of behavior.

 

[raidermatt]

How's that for a rant?

Pretty good, but keep in mind that a move like this penalizes not only those who don't take responsibility for the actions of their children in public, but also those who do.

Really, it's exactly the problem you are talking about. Windex has to put the disclaimer and hire a couple dozen lawyers because the judicial system doesn't deal with the real problem, and Disney bans all kids under 10 because they won't deal with the real problem.

 

[TXTurtles]

First off, I'm one of the first to agree that there are a lot of idiots in the world. Some with serious entitlement disorders, some just not thinking. I can handle those in the latter category (so long as they're nice about it - hey, I've spent time in that group myself. Blond roots.) but those royalty types? Ick.

But a question - from what I'm reading it sounds like general opinion is that, in a world without the self-appointed royals, V&A's would be open to children of all ages. Still without a child's menu, still with the one-price-fits-all, but still open. Is that true? A truly well behaved child (by strangers' measures, not the parents!) would be allowed, even perhaps welcomed (with white gloves and strange food) to the restaurant. Is that it? Or is V&A's just such a totally adult place that even the angel-ist of angels really should eat elsewhere? Just thinking because it's not like V&A's is the only place with age limits. Ignoring the kid-only stuff (I want to stay in Simba's clubhouse - stupid age limits), all of the dancing clubs are 18/21 and over. Why? It's not like they're Disney-sponsored strip joints. They're just a place to get a drink and dance. On the face of it, they actually seem like fun places to take kids. Except that they're not. They've been specifically tailored to be adult retreats, a place where you can get drunk, use four letter words, hit on that hot person who caught your eye, and generally act in ways you do when you're hazily enjoying yourself but don't particularly want a 5-year-old to emulate. Am I right? In this case the kids are excluded not because a few screaming ones ruin the mood but because children, simply because they're children, don't fit with the atmosphere. Even at AC, where kids are technically allowed, the staff does their best to make it an adults-only place after 9. Again, screamers aren't the issue, it's the kids as a whole. So ... is it the same or different for V&A's? Are the kiddos excluded because a few idiot breeders with money think they own the place (which certainly happens) or because V&A's simply isn't a kid restaurant and they're making it official?