“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'd really only expect very tiny newborns as babes in arms at a wedding. Most definitely under 6 months but probably really under 3 months. Babies who really only need feeding and then put in a sling or pram to sleep. 100% not a 9 month old who would be far too alert, wriggly and noisy.

From the perspective of my own wedding - a babe in arms would have been any baby young enough to not need their own seat at a table. We didn’t object to children being there per se, so noise etc wouldn’t have been an issue, it was just that we had limited seats for the wedding breakfast, and didn’t want children to be taking up the space that we could have used for another adult friend or family member instead

This is how I see it. On your lap and not expecting to be catered for separately.

I’d say it depends entirely upon the individual child’s ability. My youngest child, for example, walked at 8 months so she would never have been described as a babe in arms. My first child, however, didn’t crawl until almost 12 months so was still very much a potato at 8 months.

Best way is to check with bride. You will have to accept decision if they say no as it could be an additional cost for them to provide high chairs etc.

My youngest was the same - and no I wouldn’t take him to a no kids wedding as I wouldn’t consider him a ‘babe in arms’. He would not have stayed with me - he’d want to be off. My other two would have snuggled and slept through it at that age.
but OP, you’re obviously close to them as you’re skipping a few days holiday- it really wouldn’t be unreasonable to ask. In fact I’m sure that most people would prefer you did rather than worry about it

Your baby is not ‘babes in arms’ at 9.5 months

“Babes In Arms” at a cinema, airplane or funfair as a commercial enterprise is NOT EVEN CLOSE to the same thing as “Babes In Arms” at a wedding.

For a wedding I’d expect a newborn up to 4 months, 6 months at a push of the b&g

The people thinking their 2 year old - sorry, 24 month old - toddler would be welcome are off their trolley.

A childfree wedding generally makes an exception for tiny babies whom it would be unreasonable to separate from their mothers.

Six months mobile?! And yes technically a six month old is likely to have started weaning, I’d hardly call them as being on solids, milk should be their main food source until 1 year old.

Mobile meaning alert, wriggly, vocalising, engaging with what she sees. Not setting off on a hike, for goodness sake.

Babes in arms at formal events like weddings, presentation evenings, dinners etc means tiny baby basically eating and sleeping and not able to be apart from her mother for more than a couple of hours.

Exactly like a six month old!

I would not even consider cutting a holiday short for someone else’s wedding. If I was so integral to the proceedings, I’d expect them to have checked whether I was available. If they didn’t do that, they can manage without me.

The first half of my post, yes, exactly like a 6 month old!

(Barring additional needs) A 6 month old is perfectly able to be looked after by someone else for an afternoon - expressed milk if breastfed. It’s a parental choice to do so - like it’s a parental choice to attend the wedding and let their baby stay with a friend or family member, or not attend a wedding because they aren’t happy to leave the baby at that age.

I think it really depends on the couples reasoning. If it's a cost/space issue then older children who don't need a meal or seat would be fine. If it's that they don't want children there in general then the acceptable age to bring a baby will be lower.

Went to a close friend's child free wedding a few years ago with my about 9 month old niece (& her parents!) She was EBF and wedding was several hours away from home, so couldn't be left. It was fine and she was very much a babe in arms!!

Many mothers struggle to express or don't own a pump or bottles. I could not have left mine until 9 months when they were eating enough to leave for a workday. Daytime naps were manageable without breastfeeding, but a wedding would still have been an issue going into the evening and bedtime at that age.

Perfectly able.... if they aren't refusing a bottle.

Until reading this thread I'd have assumed it was a cost/space issue. As you may want to invite adult friends but you are only willing to pay for or seat family children.

If babies over four/six months are not welcome then that may mean some guests will not be able to attend. They may not know this until close to the time so there could be cancellations only weeks out when a baby isn't taking to solids or is refusing a bottle, or a guest has realised she can't express enough to leave her baby.

Op did you get an answer from your bride and groom. I was feeling disappointed reading this thread as I am in a similar situation with a baby who will be just 10 months for a wedding. But extended family keep talking about how lovely it will he to see baby at wedding. But then invite came through as babe in arms only. I checked with groom and they confirmed 10 month old is very much welcome and they want him in all the photos.

Is he not crawling and cruising? My youngest is 10 months and he’s always on the move. I wouldn’t at all assume he comes under babes in arms.