“Babes in arms” - what age would you say this is?

[SteakSteak]

We’ve got a wedding invite for this summer addressed to just me and DH. Obviously is just us and not our DC - more than happy with that. However, DC2 is 8 months old (will be 9.5mo at the wedding) is absolutely refusing a bottle.

what age would you deem ‘babes in arms’?

so not to drip feed:
To add to the faff - DC2 has CMPA so we’re trying to introduce special formula.

DH and I are also on holiday at the time of the wedding. We’re flying back and meant to be leaving both kids with family members aboard. I’ve no issue - other than she’s refusing a bottle. If I had to bring her, just wondering if I could. Although I would feel terrible leaving our toddler.

Obviously, I know the answer is to ask but just wanted to gauge opinions before going through all of it, if it becomes a non-issue.

I thought this was going to be related to taking a baby to a theatre production or baby cinema. In those cases, it tends to be under 12 months. I’d be inclined to agree that it is below 6 months in this context but depending on the baby - I’d ask the question. My DS was still exclusively breastfeeding at 6 months and we had to take weaning onto solids very slowly after he had a couple of full on allergic reactions. But he was leave-able by 8 months definitely (and fast-crawling so was a nightmare). Having had kids at our wedding, the difference between the babies and the children was having to pay for the children to have a meal.

i mean it is a silly and fairly arbitrary definition isn’t it? Surely no baby is literally in arms all the time? Unless they are in a sling, surely they would spend some time in a pram at a wedding. You’d need to clarify whether a pram is acceptable. I would probably take it to mean not needing a seat, not needing a meal provided, not taking up space, crawling around or struggling to be put down ie up to 4/5 months. Because a moving baby is so disruptive after all…..how dare they be mobile 🤷‍♀️🙄.
Yet baby in arms is as likely to cry during the ceremony, be sick, have a poonami and disrupt their picture perfect wedding, possibly more so, than an older baby.
You can probably tell I don’t approve of child free weddings…..soulless, pretentious affairs that treat children like unwanted hassles and put undue pressure on parents

Definitely before 6 months and not on solids. We have my wedding and I’ve said babies in arms. I don’t want my guests rocking up with a baby that needs food or a highchair (other than the older ones invited).

I'd say babies under 3 months. After that they're alert and squirming around not just wanting to be held, rocked or asleep.

Did you not read the OPs update? Invite says ‘babes in arms welcome’

Babes in arms on flights and theatres are under 2. I’d be going by that rule!

This.

TBH as it was said on the invite I really think she's just trying to be accommodating for anyone with a baby who they wouldn't be comfortable leaving yet or who it would be difficult to leave with a sitter due to breastfeeding, refusing to bottle feed etc...within reason though like not a 2 year old who is breastfeeding and going to be running around the place 😅

Not sure if this is what you want to heae but my daughter has CMPA and never took to the milk, the smell is awful. If the invite said babies in arms I'd definitely ask.

I think it's a baby who spends most of the time sleeping in their parents arms or just sitting and looking around - maybe up to 4 months, 5 at push. 9.5 months definitely isn't babe in arms in my opinion as they'll be wanting to get down, grab things etc.

We went to a wedding when DS must have been about 6 or 7 months and it's a hard age for things like that. He was way too mobile and disruptive to count as a babe in arms (yes at the theatre and on a plane but for weddings I'd say no). But he was also too little to be left for any length of time as he wouldn't take a bottle and needed me to feed him to sleep. We did go to the wedding but left shortly after dinner as DS was getting upset with my parents.

Personally I prefer child free weddings (unless it's family). Maybe it'd be different if more of my friends had kids but I went to a friend's child friendly wedding last summer and it was so tiring running around after DD and DS the whole time.

I think under 6 months as others have said.
A 9.5 month old would need a high chair and food?
If they need there own seat and food this will effect catering and seating plans and they are not in your arms.
Its more small babies who are going to lie on you and nap all day!

Very tiny babies - up to 4 months (6 max)

I would guess 1 year. Many kids aren't really mobile until 1 year old and barely eat anything as just starting weening. That's why under 1s are free almost everywhere or greatly reduced price even in kid centric places like softplays.

Its kind of a stupid phase though as my kids nearly 3 and I'm only just stopping carrying her sometimes now.

My friends DS is disabled, he is small and still gets carried and is non verbal at 5, hes not a baby but in the same physical state so does he count? hes still clearly 'in arms'.

Babies in arms are up to 6 months max, but I would say more like 4 months and under.

Not sitting, crawling, eating solids etc. A baby who is exclusively on milk and in a bassinet on a pushchair.

I think this thread highlights why a lot of couples don't make allowance for newborns... I would assume babe in arms meant at most 3-4 months. If I put that on the invite and had people asking about kids old enough to sit and crawl and eat solids, and saying nearly 2 is considered babe in arms on a plane I'd feel they were massively taking advantage.

I guess it depends on the couple and if they are close friends you likely know them well enough to have an idea of what they had in mind?
I think if they wanted older babies there they would have said so.

Under 6 months, so not moving around by themselves and probably more the point of the exercise, not eating solid food (so they don't have another mouth to accommodate for in the catering!)

I find this tough to judge. I'd say 6 months definitely, and would have said 6 maximum until I had my second. He refused to eat anything proper until around 9 months... He was breastfed and didn't take a bottle so I couldn't leave him properly until he was 10 months old (when he started eating full meals). It's a tough one!
I would just ask bride.

One of mine I certainly couldn't have left until at least 9 months either, they had been crawling for 4 months at that point, though obviously not if they were just on my lap. So there can be months between a baby being mobile and able to be left.

If not a babe in arms then it would have been sorry I can't come. You don't know until close to the date either.

For a wedding I would have thought under 1 year would be passable.

What's going to happen if someone turns up with a baby that ppl think is too old?

I assumed it was non-mobile (i.e. not crawling/cruising) and/or possibly not yet needing a high chair. My babies were prem and couldn't sit up until 8-9 months and didn't crawl until 10 months. Others can be much earlier (or later) hence the expression rather than a particular stated age.

24 months? 🤣 You mean 2 years old?

I don’t know what that means to that couple. But my CMPA baby never took a bottle, never took formula and at that age couldn’t be left because he needed milk and would only BF. You’ll have to just put that to them and see what they say but I’m sure a close friend would be understanding

24 months and 35 months are very different. I wouldn't say months but I would say when they turned two, or say two and a half, or when they would turn three, I wouldn't just say two.

3 months max