Or is DP? (Wedding related, sorry!)

(101 Posts)
HoneyBadgers Mon 04-Jul-16 20:25:52

Both DP and I have fairly large families, with quite a lot of young children. Because of this, we decided that other than immediate family, no children were invited to the wedding. So far this has been fine and people have understood, but we've now disagreed on this issue.

I have a friend, who I've known for about five years and we're close. She's expecting a little one about a month before the wedding. She plans to exclusively breast feed, and has said she's happy to take the baby to her room to calm if they get upset during the day. I don't think this is a problem, and think allowing an exclusively breastfeeding newborn is very different to allowing children to the wedding.

DP thinks it means we can't say no if other friends offer to bring their children (all 2+). Mumsnet jury, please tell me who's in the wrong here!

TheCrumpettyTree Mon 04-Jul-16 20:29:39

We had a child free wedding but allowed friends to bring a newborn. We wanted them to come! Babies don't cost anything, they don't take up a place. Your other friends are not going to be bothered. Your dh is being unreasonable. And actually I think it's mean not letting babes in arms come, bf or formula feeding.

WreckingBallsInsideMyHead Mon 04-Jul-16 20:35:39

Regardless of breast fed (I hope it works out but she may end up formula feeding) or not, a four week old is very different from a mobile baby or young child.

Your DH is bu

GreenSand Mon 04-Jul-16 20:35:39

Babes in arms (less than 6 months for sure, and probably older) are welcome to child free weddings imo.
This baby could he 2 weeks old. Kudos to Mum to be for considering a wedding, and yes, baby should be allowed.

Orda1 Mon 04-Jul-16 20:38:26

YANBU

HolaWeenie Mon 04-Jul-16 20:38:42

We had child free wedding but babes in arms were allowed, I had four friends with very new babies, including myself!

Blablabla1984 Mon 04-Jul-16 20:41:34

Newborns should be excluded from the no-kids-rule, especially if they are brestfed!! I was breastfeeding and if my baby wasn't invited I wouldn't go either.

urterriblemuriel Mon 04-Jul-16 20:42:55

You're DH is deffo BU! You want your close friend to come and there is no way a BF newborn can be left with someone else.

I went to a wedding with DC1 at 10 days old, we stayed for the ceremony and meal but swiftly left afterwards (was a bit gutted as I love the normal piss up and dance a good wedding involves). I spent a lot of the wedding breakfast time cluster feeding quietly in another room but it was important for me to see my friend get married. A still newborn is v. Different to a crazy toddler! You cannot compare and I'm sure your friend will go into another room if baby gets noisy at key times.

Hope you get DH to see sense!

urterriblemuriel Mon 04-Jul-16 20:46:45

Sorry, meant to refer to DP not DH (doh!)

RiverTam Mon 04-Jul-16 20:47:59

Babe-in-arms doesn't fall under the 'no children' as far as I would be concerned.

SteviebunsBottrittrundle Mon 04-Jul-16 20:56:56

Agree with pps that babes-in-arms shouldn't count, whether BF or FF. The baby could be as young as 2 weeks old. Your DFiance is BVU if he expects your friend to come to a wedding without her newborn.

LordyMe Mon 04-Jul-16 22:05:24

YANBU and the fact that all the other DC are over 2 makes it very clear cut. It would be more tricky if there were older babies IYSWIM

BikeRunSki Mon 04-Jul-16 22:22:03

Babe in arms totally different from 5 year old running around yelling.

HeddaGarbled Mon 04-Jul-16 22:57:01

The baby might cry all through the service and speeches.

All your P's friends who have been told they can't bring their children and have gone to a lot of trouble and expense to arrange babysitters or have to leave early for babysitters or who can't come at all because they can't get or afford babysitters might be hurt to find that an exception has been made for your side.

YANBU but neither is he. Your friend is of 5 years' duration. Has he got a friend of 10 or more years' duration who isn't being allowed to bring their child? If he invites that child, will there another tranche of friends who aren't who will be understandably annoyed. Do you see how it's a slippery slope? Make one exception, you might need to make another exception, and then another.

You agreed no children except immediate family. Now you want to make an exception. Are you going to let him pick another exception in the interest of fairness? Or will that open the floodgates?

badg3r Mon 04-Jul-16 23:03:19

DP is being unreasonable. People with older kids will understand. So will he one day if you have a baby, breastfeeding or not!

PurpleDaisies Mon 04-Jul-16 23:05:34

You agreed no children except immediate family. Now you want to make an exception. Are you going to let him pick another exception in the interest of fairness? Or will that open the floodgates?

I don't think I've ever seen anyone argue that a breastfed (or very new) baby should be excluded from a wedding. Op you're right-such small babies are in a different category to older children.

Champagneformyrealfriends Mon 04-Jul-16 23:06:46

My issue entirely but I hate the term "babes in arms"-don't know why grin
But I agree with the majority of PL's that a newborn doesn't really count, however I can see why your DP might see this from the other side. Surely your other guests not bringing their DC will (having had children of their own) understand a baby doesn't count though?

Champagneformyrealfriends Mon 04-Jul-16 23:07:03

PP's not PL's

PurpleDaisies Mon 04-Jul-16 23:07:08

People with older kids will understand. So will he one day if you have a baby, breastfeeding or not!

Or people without children who can be bothered to think about it. Not all people without children are clueless.

IslaSinga Mon 04-Jul-16 23:12:30

We have friends who said no children were allowed at their wedding and this included newborns. We had a 3 week old baby at the time, so Dh went to the service and came home and I missed the whole thing.

The friend has since said she didn't realise what having young babies was like at the time and wouldn't have done the same if she'd known.

Your friend may end up not attending if you prevent her newborn from going and that would be a shame.

blinkowl Mon 04-Jul-16 23:13:16

Babes in arms is a well-understood exception to no-kids weddings.

Anything else is unfair. Parents of older children can make arrangements for DC to be looked after (even if in reality it turns out it's massively too inconvenient to do it for one reason or another).

But parents of newborns can't leave them - that would be cruel. They have no choice but to bring them or stay away.

BackforGood Mon 04-Jul-16 23:14:07

I think most people will understand a tiny newborn is very different from a mobile (and vocal) dc who needs a place setting, ad needs entertaining.

It's more than feasible that she won't want to come when it gets to it anyway. she might have only given birth 2 weeks previously. she might have had to have a C-section. The might just be too uncomfortable. She might be struggling to breastfeed. She might be just struggling. There's no way in the world I could have got myself together enough to attend a wedding when my pfb was 4 weeks past his due date.

WanderingNotLost Tue 05-Jul-16 00:20:20

Ha I've got a whole separate kids- at-the-wedding-yay-or-nay thread on the go right now. But even we've said if we go for the no kids option babes in arms will still be allowed.

MintyChops Tue 05-Jul-16 00:34:41

YANBU.

Sciurus83 Tue 05-Jul-16 00:51:31

Newborns and breastfeeding is different, totally on to have no kids except very young ones where a babysitter isn't physically possible, exactly what my DB is doing in a couple of months, YADNBU

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now