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

[Kentmummy]

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?

Onceamai... They do understand. I've explained. They know she's bf'ing and won't take a bottle but they made a point of calling and saying that kids weren't invited.
I too had a child free wedding, so I get it... But we made exceptions for babes in arms, parents who couldn't get sitters and those who travelled overseas and anyone else that neededto bring them... It was purely a numbers thing for us, we wanted our friends there so were flexible. This couple are making it impossible for me to attend :(

In that case they are being impolite and ungracious. I think, in the circumstances, it is inappropriate for your DH to be an usher when they are showing no true understanding or friendship. For me their behaviour would fracture the relationship and I would remain politely cool in public and strike them from the christmas card list. What does DH think? Can he be persuaded to decline on this basis?

If you do go there may be some justice when people ask DH where you are and he gently explains that the silly bastards happy couple refused to allow a breastfeeding baby to attend so you are therefore at the hotel with the baby.

My DH would refuse to be an usher.

There is no way he would go off on what is essentially a 2 day jolly without me when we had a 9 week old baby!

The B&G are not being UR - but I do think they are being ridiculously precious and inflexible.
And why should you force your baby to take a bottle just to please them?

DH feels pretty torn. He always wants to keep the peace. He seems much more accepting of their decision, saying we can't decide who they invite. He will go regardless of whether I do and TBH I'm happy with that as it's a good chance for him to see alot friends he hasn't seen for a while and have a drink with them.
He wants me to keep trying with bottlefeeding expressed milk so I can go, but I don't want to keep trying as DD gets very distressed over taking a bottle and I'm not sure I want to be away from her for that long when she's so little.

Personally having catered at a number of weddings babies and all the paraphanalia that a lot of parents seem to think is necessary for a couple of hours, large pushchairs, carry cots, bags, not wanting to miss anything whilst their baby is not screaming, but certainly unsettled, is a whole lot worse than the 5 year old, who sits there quietly reading a book, playing ds with sound off etc.

If I was going to ban children from a wedding I'd ban the under 2s, consider 3-5s and have the over 5s.

Of course this is generalisation as you do have some parents who turn up with breastfed baby in a pappoose (sp.) type thing and nothing else, and the minute there's a snuffle from the baby, they leave the ceremony - but they are few and far between.

And of course there are the 5 year olds who haven't learnt to not talk when everyone else is sat in silence, and will have bought the noisest toy with them in the world.

And I appreciate the difficulty as the B&G esp with new parents that you prob (due to distance) haven't seen in a while - you don't know which camp they are going to be in so therefore to not ruin their day - ban all children.

Actually to be fair I should mention DH had 2 nights away when DS was 3 weeks old - however that was for his company's national sales conference and it was mandatory for him to attend, but we arranged for my mum to come up up just before he went so I wasn't on my own.
He felt very bad about it - but at least it wasn't something to which I had been invited but couldn't attend.

If your DH does end up going you will be fine. But it does feel like they are effectively snubbing you especially because they are being so adamant that you can't bring your baby.

I think most parents do understand the difference between a tiny baby and a rambunctious toddler or active preteen running about!

Notterrysmine... I see your point but I'm very concious of anyone getting irritated by DD. I would definately take her out if she was making any noise at all.
I guess that's immaterial though if she's not invited!

I was in exactly this situation once.

I was not "massively pissed off".

I just said, as nicely as possible, that I would not be able to come then. (my baby was 6 weeks!). They said I could have taken a baby sitter and gone back and forth to hotel to feed.

They genuinely did not see the problem.

Incidentally, bride never forgave me.

Your DH could go alone, but that is your call really.

YWNBU to not go at all. really.

Are you sure that your baby will be up to the noise/fuss/excitement/change/stress of a wedding and reception anyway? Little babies can get overwhelmed so easily; are you sure that it would be in her best interests to go? I can't imagine my baby lasting for more than a couple of hours in amongst all the fuss of a wedding, and she's a fairly relaxed little girl. So maybe it wouldn't have been feasible to go even if the baby had been invited.

I would politely decline the invite. It's just one of those things you have to accept as a parent: sometimes you have to make sacrifices due to your kids.

Kiwi, babies differ. Mine was taken everywhere until about 9 months and was as chilled and easygoing as imaginable, including big events, parties, and lots and lots of restaurant meals. At 2 he is currently overstimulated by any meal out at all and can't work off the energy by running about, so has a huge hissy fit afterwards.

TBH my experience is that small babies are very portable, it's toddlers that need routine, calm and structure.

And Kentmummy I couldn't have left a newborn that long. I couldn't have left for a w/e away until he was a year, in fact. There's no shame in that, and introducing a bottle this early could allegedly interfere with bf even if you did succeed. And expressing is a sodding nightmare, on the scale required.

I am assuming this couple don't have kids yet.

Kentmummy - the bride doesn't know a) you'll def be like that, and b) that mum number 2 with the 14wk old will also be like that.

In the summer I was at a wedding that only had one 4 wk old baby at no other children don't know if bride had been persuaded to allow this one only, or if it was the only child of their friends/family.

But baby was asleep in very large pram, blocking aisle, ushers tried to move pram, mother was like oh no leave him there he's sleeping don't disturb him.

I don't think in the bride's dream from when she was a little girl, her big entrance for walking down the aisle, would involve having to squeeze past a pushchair, with her dad behind.

The comments that were made by all at the reception - I think the bride rued the day she allowed a baby because he was only 4 weeks to come!!!

I got really upset years ago when I realised ds wasn't invited to a wedding. Felt obliged to go though, and as mum was around left ds with her overnight for the first time.

Needless to say, we had an absolute blast. But ds was about 10 months at at the time, and although he wouldn't take a bottle he was pretty much weaned, taking water from a cup.

In the OP's situation I think dp would go and I'd stay behind. Wouldn't have bothered me at all to be on my own for a couple of days, although obv. I'd have been disappointed.

I think it is perfectly ok for you and your husband to decline even if he is an usher on the grounds your baby is not invited. They should not have made him an usher if they were not prepared to have his baby at the wedding, he is part of the wedding party fgs! He is, or should be, different from other guests. Especially since the baby is so young, and breastfed.

Enjoy a nice weekend at home, and count yourself lucky you are saving so much money!

I had to talk my 18 month old to a no child wedding. The wedding was abroad, my dh was away, and I had nobody to leave our son with. So I took a friend with me so she could be with my son while I was at the wedding. She got food poisoning on the flight over, and spent the day in the bathroom.

I was assured it was still fine to come. I was fully prepared to leave the Church if he made a noise. Which he did. When the priest said to my cousin "do you X take Y to be your wife" my son shouted out "NO NO NO NO" So I promptly left.

I spent an hour at the reception just to "show my face", it was a sushi stand up reception.... Very fancy. Nothing ds could eat, but I had not expected that. But I made sure to explain to everybody what had happened, to avoid ill feeling.

The thing about "child-free" weddings is half the time when you turn up they aren't!

And the other thing about "child-free" weddings is every one I've been invited to has made an exception for tinies. It's not hard. The form of words is something along the lines of "children are not invited, however we do understand that some guests have small babies whom they cannot leave, and they of course are welcome".

Doubtless your DH really wants to go, so you've got two options really. Either put up (get a relative down to help for the weekend?) or say to them, we can't come without the baby - and allow them either to have a change of heart, or not.

Either way, the friendship won't be the same again, I fear...

They are being rude, so YANBU. Excluding BF babies = excluding the mother or at best forcing her into impossible arrangements of travelling to and from the hotel rooms.
I am sorry but that's just appalling manners on the side of any host (regardless of whether the occasion is a wedding or not).

I would decline with a short explanation, writing a nice note with a small present maybe - keep it extremely polite.

And by the way, none of the weddings I have been to in the UK excluded kids, and guess what? The biggest problems/annoyances were caused by adults (being drunk or rude or inconsiderate or making inappropriate comments at inappropriate times).

Yanbu but neither are they. Although I wouldn't class them as good friends anymore.

I wouldn't attend and neither would dh.

I wouldn't travel all that way to sit in a hotel room. And if you can't manage without dh (and i would have struggled when dd was that young) then he shouldn't go either.

When we got married I didn't put the kids names on invitations (in the hope that parents would take the hint and leave them at home) BUT some cousins were travelling from far away and they brought them, wasn't a problem. I am very much in the camp that if a bride and groom wants a no kids wedding that it is completely their choice, but I think that any bride who would not allow a breastfeeding mother to bring her little baby with her should be ashamed. I think a lot of it is ignorance more than anything else, bride may not realise how difficult it is for the mother and child. And if and when the time comes when they are in the same situation themselves they will probably feel embarassed about not allowing baby.

And the reason BTW that we didn't include kids names on invites is because there were at least 30 kids and numbers were fairly squeezed as it was

I would not go, it's unreasonable to expect you to leave such a little baby, though tbh even if she was welcome it sounds hard work to travel such a distance with a baby!

But why would you travel to Scotland and sit in a hotel? Surely if you weren't going to attend the wedding you would stay at home?

What a load of crap from several people. Only bridezillas want a child free wedding? What a load of rubbish, some people dont want crying/screaming/running riot during an intimate ceremony, its stressful and off putting. And not everyone thinks your little princess tippytoes is the best thing since sliced bread, thats their right to choose, get over it.
Also people saying 'just turn up anyway' yes thats great, cause resentment and annoyance to the bride and groom on their special day, theres a good way to make them value your friendship

Personally, I have been on both sides of this and I think too much is being made of the issue.

When we got married we did not want to invite children. We made an exception only for my sister's 18 month old as was the only child of immediate family. We did ask that my nephew did not attend the ceremony. We did not want the moment we were married to be spoilt by a child shouting things out and making a noise etc. This would still have applied to a young baby too. Now I've got my own children I still think that stance is reasonable, although my sis was not happy about it AT ALL.

Since we've had a child we have been invited to the wedding of my DD's godmother which was 400 miles away. When we were on the point of booking a 2 week holiday to coincide with going I thought to ask if she was invited (only been told to save the date at that point) and was told no children. I was a bit annoyed but only because she had been encouraging me to book the holiday and had never said DD not invited.

She then said I should get my parents to come and look after her or leave her with my Mum and Dad (600 miles from wedding). We did not want to do either of these options so we decided not to go.

Well Boo Hoo - I'm sure it did not spoil her wedding in the slightest not to have me there and it did not bother us at all not to go.

In short(!) everybody should be able to invite whomever they like to their own wedding as long as they are clear from the start, but should also understand that a no children policy may mean that some people can't/won't come and should happily accept their decision.

I think neither of you should go, but don't make a huge fuss about it. I wouldn't even have tried to change their mind - it is their choice, but they should also accept your decision happily.

dh and i have been invited to a good friends wedding this month. our older 4 childrent arent invited, but they have said babies in arms are welcome so will be taking our ds (when he decides to arrive!)