Page 8 | Child Free Weddings have always been normal - stop pretending otherwise

autienotnaughty · 23/07/2025 05:17

Love a child free wedding. I was happy to have children at mine - literally my son, my cousins 1 year old, and my friends 8 year old so they were no bother. But tbh much prefer it when kids aren’t invited and I can have a relaxed (tipsy) day.

Original poster

thelakeisle · 23/07/2025 05:15

thelakeisle · 23/07/2025 00:08

Just that really. Every other week some entitled family member trots out the "reasons" why she is super special and her children MUST be allowed to attend someone else's wedding. It's batshit, over entitled and frankly weird.

I do not understand this desperate need to control other people's lives or inability to just turn down an invitation politely.

Other people's weddings - no matter who they are or what your relationship is - are not about you. The bride and the groom are the only people who get to decide anything.

No ifs, no ands, no buts.

So, when you receive a child free wedding invitation these are your options.

You can ask very very very politely if your children are the special exception - the answer will be no, by the way.
You can accept the situation like a grown up and say yes.
You can accept the situation like a grown up and say no.
You can accept the situation and throw a tantrum in real life, on mumsnet or any other platform of your choice.
You can turn up with your kids and be exiled from most family events for the rest of your life.

And for the hard of thinking:

Child free weddings don't mean they hate your children or any children.
They will be fine with you turning down the invitaiton, you won't be making any great dramatic stand by doing so, few will notice, probably none will actually care.
There are extremely good reasons why some people have made the choice to not have kids at their weddings, dating back right through history this has been a common practice.
Again, this is not a new thing. Not at all. You're just not very well educated about the past, or are wearing your Pollyanna goggles.
Not wanting kids at the wedding has nothing to do with aesthetics and everything to do with adults enjoying themselves unencumbered and uninterrupted.
Your kids are only cute to you, your spouse and maybe the grandparents. Everyone else is just being nice.
Your personal story doesn't matter to the bride and groom, and nor should it.

I think that covers it. Thank you for coming to my TedTalk.

Stands back to await the hurricane of entitlement and faux shock and horror.

Posting with a poll for a bit of a laugh, mumsnetters do love their polls :)

Ok, I am going to tap out now, I did not want to be one of those OPs who cuts and runs after one comment, so I have responded quite a few times - but I am just repeating myself over and over to the usual suspects, who totally get it, but just want to bend other people to their will anyway.

Thanks to all the people who agreed, I am glad we are in the majority.

As for those who do get it but refuse to accept it, you are destined for a disappointing life filled with lots of self created dramas. Or maybe you can just choose not to be so entitled.

It's not your day. It's not your spotlight. It's not your decision. It's not about you, and you are making an arse of yourself and revealing how gobsmackingly self involved you are every single time you complain about it.

Exits stage left.

OP posts:

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:14

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 05:10

And what about my other points?

Show quote history

They don't care. They've made it clear their want to party comes before their children's need to feed regularly. I feel sorry for their kids. It will come home to roost for them one day.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:10

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:08

Yes, I care about my children more than you do about yours. So what?

Show quote history

Ha ha, love it 🤣

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 05:10

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:05

Well your baby can go 3-4 hours without a feed. You can pump, they can use a bottle, they can even have breastmilk iceblocks. I'd have DH nearby with the baby, and if they only took the boob then I'd do the feeds. Obviously I'd only go to the effort for someone I really cared about. And if I didn't want to I'd just say no thanks, but I wouldn't make a big fuss over it, like so many do.

Show quote history

And what about my other points?

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:10

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:08

3-4 hours between feeds is the standard for formula fed babies. It takes 1.5 hours to digest breastmilk by contrast, which is why breastfed babies feed so often when little. I'm not going to make my breastfed baby go 3-4 hours between feeds. Why should they be hungry and uncomfortable? I'm not doing that to my baby so I can attend a party. No way.

Show quote history

It really isn't, I EBF and actually 2-3hrs is standard, unless maybe you have a premmie and unless they're a newborn it can stretch to 4. Anyway, stop before you hurt yourself 😳😆

Munchymunch · 23/07/2025 05:08

YANBU. I had children at our wedding and loved it. My choice. It fit when we got married (later in the family and friendship group so many people had kids) and I loved having them all there. However, I’ve also attended child free weddings, mainly but not exclusively in my twenties rather than thirties and they were also fantastic occasions. A bit later there were exceptions for breastfed babies, nieces and nephews of the couple, and people who genuinely had no childcare. Your wedding = your choice. And both choices are valid. Equally though, your invitation = your choice and if someone can’t attend a wedding because their children aren’t invited then the couple must accept that as a consequence of their choice!

Edited to add breastfed babies!

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:08

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:07

Can you hear yourself? Seriously, take a break, then go back and re-read your comments with an open mind. You might just learn something about yourself. Smh.

Edited

Show quote history

Yes, I care about my children more than you do about yours. So what?

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:08

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:05

Well your baby can go 3-4 hours without a feed. You can pump, they can use a bottle, they can even have breastmilk iceblocks. I'd have DH nearby with the baby, and if they only took the boob then I'd do the feeds. Obviously I'd only go to the effort for someone I really cared about. And if I didn't want to I'd just say no thanks, but I wouldn't make a big fuss over it, like so many do.

Show quote history

3-4 hours between feeds is the standard for formula fed babies. It takes 1.5 hours to digest breastmilk by contrast, which is why breastfed babies feed so often when little. I'm not going to make my breastfed baby go 3-4 hours between feeds. Why should they be hungry and uncomfortable? I'm not doing that to my baby so I can attend a party. No way.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:07

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:06

My babies didn't really cry. Besides, it's easy to tell when a newborn is going to get restless. So you sit at the back and go out when they start wriggling. No-one is any the wiser.

Show quote history

Can you hear yourself? Seriously, take a break, then go back and re-read your comments with an open mind. You might just learn something about yourself. Smh.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:06

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:03

That's up to you but I'm not putting a party ahead of my baby's need to feed on demand.

Besides, I was just out of hospital after having had a terrible breast infection. I'd been told that I had to keep feeding baby frequently, directly off the breast without stopping, or I'd be right back there with an abscess. Nothing is worth risking my health or future breastfeeding.

Show quote history

Oh jeezus. Just stop already 🙄😆

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:06

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:03

I know for a fact that there was no cost for the baby, who would have slept in my arms the whole time

Yet another one. For you, you don't think it's a big deal because the baby will be sleeping in your arms? Really? So babies don't cry etc? These are all such self centred views.

Show quote history

My babies didn't really cry. Besides, it's easy to tell when a newborn is going to get restless. So you sit at the back and go out when they start wriggling. No-one is any the wiser.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:05

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 05:01

How is bf an easy one to resolve?

People are going to prioritise their children, that's normal. Childcare is often very expensive too and not everyone can afford it, even at a stretch.

Show quote history

Well your baby can go 3-4 hours without a feed. You can pump, they can use a bottle, they can even have breastmilk iceblocks. I'd have DH nearby with the baby, and if they only took the boob then I'd do the feeds. Obviously I'd only go to the effort for someone I really cared about. And if I didn't want to I'd just say no thanks, but I wouldn't make a big fuss over it, like so many do.

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 05:03

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:01

I EBF and I didn't need to be with my baby constantly, and they didn't take a bottle. Where there is a will, there is a way 🤷🏻‍♀️

Show quote history

That's up to you but I'm not putting a party ahead of my baby's need to feed on demand.

Besides, I was just out of hospital after having had a terrible breast infection. I'd been told that I had to keep feeding baby frequently, directly off the breast without stopping, or I'd be right back there with an abscess. Nothing is worth risking my health or future breastfeeding.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:03

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 04:57

It's not always about cost though, which I can understand if they do have to pay for the child. I couldn't bring a few week old baby to a wedding we'd have to travel for and I know for a fact that there was no cost for the baby, who would have slept in my arms the whole time. When we got the invitation they still cited cost as the reason in a little slip in the invitation. Due to the stupidity of a lying excuse, I returned the decline card the same day. At least be honest and say you just don't want any children there. I can respect that, not what I know to be a lie.

I know for a fact that there was no cost for the baby, who would have slept in my arms the whole time

Yet another one. For you, you don't think it's a big deal because the baby will be sleeping in your arms? Really? So babies don't cry etc? These are all such self centred views.

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 05:01

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 04:59

Agree, there are exceptions but usually there is a way if you want to. BF for example isn't an excuse, that's an easy one to resolve. Same with single parents.

Edited

Show quote history

How is bf an easy one to resolve?

People are going to prioritise their children, that's normal. Childcare is often very expensive too and not everyone can afford it, even at a stretch.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 05:01

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 04:59

I will always prioritise my new baby over your wedding. Why wouldn't I? When weddings involve travel, you can't just leave a newborn baby with their father when they are frequently feeding and don't take bottles.

Show quote history

I EBF and I didn't need to be with my baby constantly, and they didn't take a bottle. Where there is a will, there is a way 🤷🏻‍♀️

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 04:59

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 04:56

There isn't always a way though. Single parents, children with special needs, breastfed babies ect.

Show quote history

Agree, there are exceptions but usually there is a way if you want to. BF for example isn't an excuse, that's an easy one to resolve. Same with single parents.

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 04:59

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 04:54

if a sibling had prioritised the child free wedding above my presence I would have been hurt

Interesting choice of wording, I think if a sibling is not prioritising my wedding, then I'd have the right to be more hurt. You can always find a way, either DH looks after child/ILs/babysitter etc. You can make the effort, you just choose not to. And then of course pull the woe is me card 🙄

Edited

Show quote history

I will always prioritise my new baby over your wedding. Why wouldn't I? When weddings involve travel, you can't just leave a newborn baby with their father when they are frequently feeding and don't take bottles.

summer56923 · 23/07/2025 04:57

It's not always about cost though, which I can understand if they do have to pay for the child. I couldn't bring a few week old baby to a wedding we'd have to travel for and I know for a fact that there was no cost for the baby, who would have slept in my arms the whole time. When we got the invitation they still cited cost as the reason in a little slip in the invitation. Due to the stupidity of a lying excuse, I returned the decline card the same day. At least be honest and say you just don't want any children there. I can respect that, not what I know to be a lie.

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 04:56

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 04:54

if a sibling had prioritised the child free wedding above my presence I would have been hurt

Interesting choice of wording, I think if a sibling is not prioritising my wedding, then I'd have the right to be more hurt. You can always find a way, either DH looks after child/ILs/babysitter etc. You can make the effort, you just choose not to. And then of course pull the woe is me card 🙄

Edited

Show quote history

There isn't always a way though. Single parents, children with special needs, breastfed babies ect.

pourmeadrinkpls · 23/07/2025 04:54

knitnerd90 · 23/07/2025 03:48

I remember both sorts growing up.

The thing for me is that both sides can be unreasonable. For example not making exceptions for newborns, or for siblings' children, especially if long travel is involved. I've seen couples who were more keen on the childfree wedding than having a sibling present even if there were real obstacles to not having children at the wedding. Or claiming they "can't" make exceptions, which is nonsense. They could, they don't want to: at least be honest about it.

I would never have dreamed of asking anyone who wasn't a close relation for an exception to no children, and there were weddings I did not attend because childcare was an issue, but if a sibling had prioritised the child free wedding above my presence I would have been hurt.

if a sibling had prioritised the child free wedding above my presence I would have been hurt

Interesting choice of wording, I think if a sibling is not prioritising my wedding, then I'd have the right to be more hurt. You can always find a way, either DH looks after child/ILs/babysitter etc. You can make the effort, you just choose not to. And then of course pull the woe is me card 🙄

Original poster

thelakeisle · 23/07/2025 04:53

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 04:45

Fair point. I had never heard of a child free wedding until about 10 years ago, but that must just be me.

The brides big day, yes. But it was still a family occasion. It wasn't so rigid in trying to create the perfect, curated day to suit only the bride. Ime, anyway.

Show quote history

I don't agree, but you are entitled to your view, of course.

OP posts:

Original poster

thelakeisle · 23/07/2025 04:52

sesquipedalian · 23/07/2025 04:42

“[Child-free weddings] is not a new thing. Not at all. You're just not very well educated about the past, or are wearing your Pollyanna goggles.”

I don’t think that’s true, and for the simple reason that weddings have changed from being family affairs with a few friends, to being mostly friends with some family. When I was young, you told your mother you were going to get married, and she organised and paid for your wedding - which meant it was much more family-oriented. It was quite unusual to have an evening do - the bride and groom would leave early evening and that was that - and the hen party was thankfully unknown. These days, unless you come from a very wealthy background, the wedding is organised by the bride and groom and paid for by them with parental contributions - so as they are organising, they have control of the guest list. Weddings are hideously expensive, and many a bride and groom trim children to cut down on costs.

But you are incorrect, as I myself and every one of the many who agrees with me every time this subject is raised can tell you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, which I disagree with.

OP posts:

CommissarySushi · 23/07/2025 04:45

thelakeisle · 23/07/2025 04:40

Well you can believe that, certainly, but you are therefore saying I'm lying about my experiences and that everyone who has agreed with me on this thread and on every thread that this is mentioned on is also lying. Which you are also free to believe, if it suits you.

And no, it was always the bride's big day, in Western culture.

Show quote history

Fair point. I had never heard of a child free wedding until about 10 years ago, but that must just be me.

The brides big day, yes. But it was still a family occasion. It wasn't so rigid in trying to create the perfect, curated day to suit only the bride. Ime, anyway.