Victoria & Albert's Age Limit About This Page:

[Jennifer Marx]

My grandmother, who is in Florida for the winter, sent me an e-mail this morning alerting me to Victoria & Albert's new age restriction (no kids under 10). I didn't want to comment on this in the news item thread, but I feel the need to say something (and I'll bet many of you want to, also).

Generally, I think the age limit is good and will be well accepted by other diners. If Dave and I went back to Victoria & Albert's in the next few years, we'd almost undoubtedly do something so elegant without the kids, and it's always easier to have a night out without the kids when there aren't other kids around. We actually have taken Allie to Victoria & Albert's -- it was for our wedding dinner back in 2004. She was 11 at the time, however. Alexander is usually quite well behaved in restaurants, having had lots of practice, but he's still a kid and can still get restless and rambuctious -- I wouldn't want to take him to Victoria & Albert's.

Here is the OrlandoSentinel blog, which was the first to report the change, I believe:
http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/bus...ng-childr.html

What do you all think?

[mattnkatsmum]

Having dined at Victoria & Alberts' just two nights ago, I would say that I wholeheartedly agree with this restriction. Our meal was fabulous, elegant and several notches above anything I have eaten at WDW (or indeed anywhere).

Matt accompanied Steve and I, but he is fifteen and was just about mature enough to appreciate the experience. I cannot think why anyone would want to spend $125 plus tip on feeding a little one, anyway.

Whilst I have no problems with children in any of the other WDW restaurants, we chose to leave Kat in the childcare facilities whenever we ate in Signature Restaurants on this trip, and for us it was definitely a win/win situation. Kat adores the children's clubs and we got to eat without fear of a meltdown.

It's also worth mentioning that at the V&A the dress code was enforced for Matt. He had to wear a suit just like his Dad.

[Colexis Mom]

I think it's fine It's not a restaurant that I would even think of bringing my kids to (I know how they behave first, and second just for cost reasons).

[Eeyoresmom]

I have to admit, I was a little annoyed when I first saw that they were going to put the age restriction on. If I'm willing to pay that amount for my child and I believe my child would behave properly and enjoy the meal, I didn't see an issue. However, when I read the article, I saw that the age limit is 10 and quickly changed my tune. I really don't believe many children under 10 would enjoy the food and atmosphere or have the patients to last that long at dinner. At age 10 and up, I think the parents will know their children well enough to determine if it's an appropriate atmosphere for their child.

[LLaffinPlace]

I approve. With many, many other venues where children are greeted with open arms, I do not think it is outrageous to have one where they are restricted.

After all, this is consistent with the DCL boats and Castaway Cay having areas for children and others not for children.

The genesis for Disneyland was for children and their parents to have a place where they are able to have fun together. Walt Disney World is large enough to have a place just for adults (the nightclubs at Downtown Disney are another example) and yet not fly in the face of this philosophy.

[krisk11]

I already thought there was an age restriction. I totally approve of this and wouldn't have brought my dd to the restaurant under 10 and she was also a well behaved child in restaurants but wouldn't have enjoyed it enough to justify the cost

[goofysdtr]

Speaking as someone who has not yet had the privilege of dining at V & A's, I'm fine with the change. I agree with Larry in that there are many places to dine with your children (quite a few being fairly upscale). I don't have a problem with them making this one experience only for those over 10. I would imagine this change may have been implemented because they've had complaints. If I spent $250 on a special dinner with my DH & was seated next to an unhappy 4-year-old, I'd imagine I'd be quite ticked.

[wvugrrrl]

Well, I'm just going to throw this out there, with a small disclaimer: I am most definitely not trying to offend ANYONE (with children, or otherwise).
Personally, as an adult with no children (and no plans to have children), I think it's nice to be able to go out to dinner once in awhile, and be in the company of adults. Especially when you're paying top dollar, at a place like Victoria and Albert's. Therefore, I definitely think the age limit is absolutely appropriate.

[lucretziathevagabond]

I agree with the age restriction. I recently visited a restaurant called "The Fig Tree" for a birthday, and despite sky-high prices was treated to a semi-meltdown from a six year old up way past his bedtime. The parents were embarrassed and other diners were annoyed. Excellent food, wonderful service, but it is the whining child that sticks in my mind.

Also, the menu options might be a bit adventurous for many adults, to say nothing of a child's palate. I don't have children, but there is no way my nieces and nephews would even try some of the items on V&A's menus. Or appreciate it if they were willing to try it.

So far, everyone seems to be in favor of the restriction. Is there anyone out there who thinks it's a bad idea?

LV

[WillCAD]

Originally Posted by lucretziathevagabond

So far, everyone seems to be in favor of the restriction. Is there anyone out there who thinks it's a bad idea?

LV

I doubt you'll find many - if any - on the Passporter boards who disagree with the new age restriction at V&A, but on another board which shall remain nameless there have been numerous people complaining about it. Their reasons are numerous and varied

* Some say that having age-restrictions flies in the face of Walt's vision of a family-oriented vacation spot where kids and parents could have fun together (hogwash, says I)

* Others claim to have, and I quote, "the best behaved 6 year old on the planet" and further claim that their little angels not only never misbehave or annoy anyone, but also have an adult's appreciation for the fine dining options at restaurants like V&A (again I says, Hogwash!)

* Still others seem to labor under the misconception that any person, couple, or group of people which does not include minor children does not qualify as a "family" and should not be given the same considerations as a group which does (insulting to solos, unmarrieds, childless couples, and empty-nesters, not to mention those non-family groups of friends who frequent WDW)

Personally, I have long been in favor of a limited number of adults-only restaurants at WDW, and not just the 5-star signature places, either, but a mid-priced buffet or table-service place as well. I'd just once like to enjoy a WDW buffet meal without characters and without watching 5-year olds building sculptures in the food on the buffet; come to think of it, I'd like that at a buffet anywhere in the country!

I would not like to see age restrictions on any restaurant in the parks, nor would I like to see dress codes (beyond no bathing suits and the old "no shirt, no shoes, no service" rule) in any of the in-park restaurants, but I like the resort casual dress code at the signature places, and the jacket and tie requirement at V&A (even though I don't eat there because it's out of my price range), and I like the age restriction there, too. I'd love to see a few more - just a few - restaurants at WDW with similar age restrictions.

[Teresa]

When we ate at V&A many years ago, we chose to leave our younger kids with an in-room child-care service. They were 9 and 4. It was debated whether the 9 yr. old would be okay or no, but finally decided that 15 people (among them 6 teens) were plenty.
The meal is long, and almost more than rowdy teens could handle - there is no way my 9 yr. old, who has been to many up-scale restaurants, could have coped at that time.

With that in mind, I fully endorse the age restriction. Of course, you know people will push it - and just like putting their kids in platform shoes or spiking up their hair, they'll cheat and lie to get their kids in! Hopefully, V&A's will also escort unruly people and their families out of the place!

[chezp]

I fully agree with the new age restriction - it sounds to me like they've got it just right.

I also hear what Will's saying. For a long time now, we've thought that it would be a great idea to perhaps have some of the signature restaurants as either adult only or children over a certain age for seatings after a set time - maybe 9pm? That way, if you want a quieter meal with fewer children (obviously some will be there from earlier seatings), then you know to book for a later dinner - and it wouldn't impact too much on families, as many youngsters are in either in bed by that time or being taken back to bed.

[Jillybean]

I love my two little girls more than life itself, but there is no way I would take them to V&A until they were much older. And quite honestly, at this point, they would not want to be there either. That's why we use in-room babysitting and the children's clubs when we decide to eat at a signature restaurant (except we have taken them both to HBD since it's actually in a park).

I completely agree with this decision.

Jill

[Lemap760]

I also agree with the age restriction. I don't claim to have the "best behaved child" and I know how restless he can get. I've dragged him out of restaurants because he wasn't behaving. I can't imagine bringing him to any upscale restaurant.

[WillCAD]

Originally Posted by chezp

I fully agree with the new age restriction - it sounds to me like they've got it just right.

I also hear what Will's saying. For a long time now, we've thought that it would be a great idea to perhaps have some of the signature restaurants as either adult only or children over a certain age for seatings after a set time - maybe 9pm? That way, if you want a quieter meal with fewer children (obviously some will be there from earlier seatings), then you know to book for a later dinner - and it wouldn't impact too much on families, as many youngsters are in either in bed by that time or being taken back to bed.

I really don't think one of those "after a certain time" restrictions would work Cheryl, for two reasons:

1) Coming from the UK, you are well aware of the difficulty in adjusting your body clock to a different time zone; many people from the US west coast, whose body clocks run 3 hours later than WDW time, prefer to eat as late as 10pm while at WDW (which is 7pm at home).

And there are also weirdos like me who prefer to eat earlier in the evening; I like having dinner before 7pm, and would have a mighty hard time pounding down a meal after 9pm.

2) Transition from kid-friendly to adults-only would cause lots of grief. What happens to those who have 8:30 ADRs at a restaurant where dinner takes nearly 2 hours? Will they be thrown out at 9pm? Or will the restaurant stop seating kids as early as 7pm so that they're all gone by the 9pm no-kids deadline? If kids are seated right up to the 9pm deadline, then enjoy a two-hour meal, then the deadline becomes meaningless and everybody in the restaurant suffers if a kid has a meltdown.

On a side note, judging by the number of people who are confused to the point of panic by so many WDW rules and procedures, I think having any kind of conditional ban would drive folks up the wall.

But it might be workable to have some restaurants go kid-free 2 or 3 days a week, instead of after a certain time. Again, you'd have some folks up in arms, "Thursday is my MK day but Cali Grill is child-free on Thursday! This is an outrage! Whatever happend to the customer always being right!" But that would eliminate the transition times and make it possible for folks wanting to have a child-free meal to do so while not precluding children from a restaurant entirely.