Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To be pee'd off DD is not invited to friends wedding

263 replies

Kentmummy · 03/01/2011 21:07

DH and I have been invited to a good friends wedding in feb. We live in Kent and wedding is in Scotland. DH has been asked to be an usher.
The bride and groom are good friends and we were very excited to be going... Until they said no children were invited.
I appreciate this is their wedding and I understand the no children policy if it was down to numbers but our DD is only 9 weeks old so won't cost them a penny or take up a seat. I said I'd sit at the back of the church and leave immediately as soon as she made the smallest noise.
They have refused.... The problem is I'm breast feeding so I can't leave her for the day and night as she would starve and my boobs would burst!
I've tried to give her a bottle so I can go and leave her with family but she just won't take it.
As DH is an usher he still has to go but without me... Also means we have to travel to Scotland so I can sit in a hotel while DH is at wedding.
AIBU to be pretty pissed off and think they are being a bit mean?

OP posts:
charliesmommy · 03/01/2011 23:18

"but it may be as well for Bride and Groomzillas to remember that God runs no guest list"

does he pay for it too Grin

Original poster
Kentmummy · 03/01/2011 23:19

Normy... Sounds like a great plan!!! Like your thinking x

OP posts:
montysorry · 03/01/2011 23:19

They are NBU but surely they can't expect your DH to still be an usher.

Is this your first baby? No way on earth would I have agreed to DH being in Aberdeen and me in Kend with a newborn of 2mths. He would not have gone either. Maybe with no2 or 3 but def not with my first. There is no way I would have coped on my own for an entire weekend.

I think you should say that neither of you can make it under the circumstances. This may change their mind. I take it they haven't got kids otherwise they'd understand what they are asking you both to do.

I wouldn't go and it would really affect my friendship to be honest. Excluding my toddlers/older children fine. But to exclude a 2mth old BF baby esp when the MUm has said she'll sit at the back and leave if baby cries IS unreasonable IMO.

Original poster
Kentmummy · 03/01/2011 23:22

Monty... Yes, This is our first baby and yes, I definately wouldn't cope brilliantly on my own!

OP posts:
mamatomany · 03/01/2011 23:24

YANBU not to go, friends of ours got married when DD2 and another friend who'd come over from Oz's little one were 8 weeks old, the other mum and I fed the babies at the back of the church and neither baby made a peep all day.
My Dh was best man so off doing what they do and a good time was had by all.

Tryharder · 03/01/2011 23:27

If I were you,OP, I wouldn't have even asked if I could take my baby or not, I would have just taken him. People make their weddings child-free because they don't want 4 year olds running around not because of a baby. I can;t believe they have been crass enough to say that a 9 week old baby couldn't come which in effect means that you can't come and yet still expect your DH to attend. I think you should both decline.

Original poster
Kentmummy · 03/01/2011 23:29

Tryharder.... I maybe would have considered that but they made a point of calling us to say "sorry, you can't bring your kid" !!!

OP posts:
ifancyashandy · 03/01/2011 23:30

But KentMummy you say you understand but you wabt them to reconsider for you. See the thing is, if they do then they have to for everyone. And that's why if they've decided to go child free (and I don't have an opinion on that personally - each to their own), then they have to be consistant.

Original poster
Kentmummy · 03/01/2011 23:34

I do understand that you would not want older kids running around making a noise and costing you money and taking up a seat when the parents could probably get a babysitter but with a very young bf baby who will cost them nothing and I can't get a babysitter for, when they have asked DH to travel all the way across the country to be an usher, knowing DD and me would not be able to go... They are meant to be good friends and I do feel pretty hurt.

OP posts:
montysorry · 03/01/2011 23:41

Maybe for everyone who has a 9wk old breastfeeder! I can't imagine they'd be opening the floodgates with that one.

You do know they cannot legally stop you from attending the service, don't you? In some churches, the old biddies go to all the matches and dispatches.

humanoctopus · 03/01/2011 23:43

The wedding party has absolutely nothing to do with te couple making a committment to eachother. That is the marriage ceremony.

The party, reception, etc. is a way to celebrate the day.

Too many precious bride/groomzillas methinks.

YakkinTosh · 03/01/2011 23:46

Oh, don't try and get your baby to take a bottle just so that you can leave her and go to this wedding, it isn't worth it! You won't feel comfortable leaving her overnight, or with a stranger as babysitter anyway, not at 9 weeks.

It's sad, but they have set a rule that makes it impossible for you to go. IMO YANBU to be peed off, and I bet when they have a baby and look back on this, they will be Blush.

I wouldn't be dragging a young babe all that way in the car just for you to sit in the hotel, either. Send your DH or both cry off.

BaggedandTagged · 03/01/2011 23:48

I think having an exception to a no children policy for "babes in arms" is usual (or at least it is in my circle) so I think they're being a bit unreasonable, even though I am a staunch supporter of the right to child free weddings.

For people getting married after the crowd, inviting children often means you have to halve the number of your friends who you can invite as the limit is the number the venue can cater rather than cash and for catering/fire purposes, a child is still one head. Babes in arms are usually excluded.

YakkinTosh · 03/01/2011 23:50

I'm not surprised you feel hurt.

Yes, it is their day, their decision (about the recepion anyway - see comments below about old biddies), but that doesn't stop their decision being hurtful.

singingcat · 03/01/2011 23:50

Well just don't go. It's miles away, and it'll be boring anyway. Regardless of whether they agreed to the baby, you would still probably spend most of your time sitting in the hotel with the baby anyway or running in and out changing, feeding, with her crying etc. not to mention the journey there and back. Complete mission.

humanoctopus · 03/01/2011 23:52

Oh, and I don't think this couple are your friends.

Friends wouldn't want you to miss out on their wedding and would make sure that ye could make it.

scottishmummy · 04/01/2011 00:06

goodness they are harsh.such rigidity isnt nice

dont know what to advise but id be upset. are they so rigid they wont listen to rational reasoning?

mamatomany · 04/01/2011 00:15

Are they getting married in a church ? If so they have no say who is at their wedding it's a public event.

Thinking about it a lady from the NCT turned up at ours with her 2 year old who did chirp all through our vows which didn't bother me in the slightest I could wait for that bit to be over so I could get on with my party Grin

mjinsparklystockings · 04/01/2011 00:25

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

confuddledDOTcom · 04/01/2011 00:26

You can't actually stop anyone from going to a wedding, it's against the law.

I'm not a fan of childfree weddings but if that's what the couple want then that's up to them. I wouldn't leave a baby, breast or bottle fed and older children would only be left if I had someone free to take them (they only stay with our parents and my brother). A couple who said no to babies wouldn't have me at their wedding and I would be angry, especially if it was someone close enough they asked us to be involved. A couple who said no to older children would have to accept that it could mean I'm not there and if they weren't happy about it then they're not much of a friend.

OH's step-brother had a childfree wedding and didn't even invite us! We had noticed that we hadn't had an invite but didn't think much of it. We were at his nan's one day and she announced we weren't invited because we had a newborn. Apparently his full nieces and nephews weren't invited and his best man refused to go! We had a phone call on the night from SFIL saying "get here now!" there were loads of kids there in the end!

perfectstorm · 04/01/2011 00:28

I was all set to chant my usual on this type of thread about their day, their decision... but a 9 week old baby? Breastfed, at that? For a long-distance wedding where he parents are close enough the dad is an usher? That's their unreasonableness.

I'm possibly not going to be able to make a friend's wedding at the end of the month because our childcare has fallen through, but that's my problem. They only want wedding party kids because they'd have 40 extra mouths to pay for if children were allowed, and absolutely fair enough. But babes in arms are and should be exempt.

YANBU at all.

scottishmummy · 04/01/2011 00:36

christ almighty doesn't matter whether technically anyone can participate or go ceremony.no one is going to travel to make that moot point

turn up sit at front with ah telt ye so face,anyone can attend a public place of worship

dont think so

BreconBeBuggered · 04/01/2011 00:39

They must know they're virtually un-inviting you with this kind of restriction, given the distance involved? DS1 was about 15 weeks old when we were invited to a child-free wedding. It was only an hour or so away, and he'd had expressed milk plenty of times, but we still had to cut the day short as he was inconsolable without his regular milk supply on hand.

Most weddings are crap, anyway. Mass catering, warm wine in the afternoon and you either don't get the chance to grab the nap you need afterwards or you wake up with a hangover if you do.

confuddledDOTcom · 04/01/2011 01:04

I seem to remember posting a rather generalised post about people having a childfree wedding and don't remember at any point saying that the OP should actually fly to Scotland just to go to the wedding as is her legal right.

onceamai · 04/01/2011 06:46

YANBU - we had a child free wedding except for very close family - don't have a problem with that and don't think anyone else did either and numbers were restricted at the reception. BUT two breastfeeding babies came with our blessing and we wouldn't have had it any other way. Do the couple understand? They might not, can you explain it?

Swipe left for the next trending thread