Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

Original poster

Yes, it's another kids at weddings thread, hooray

21 replies

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 21:52

So if you are having only kids of the immediate family at your wedding, that's obviously totally your call. You day, your way and all that.

But AIBU to think that blaming venue size as the reason for banning all kids - including babes in arms - is just BS? How much space does a non-weaned baby actually take up?!

Just be honest and say you don't want them there.

OP posts:

CustardOmlet · 07/09/2013 21:54

Pushchair space?

BonaDea · 07/09/2013 21:57

Yanbu.

Be honest about why you can't have them there - totally the hosts' call.

Famzilla · 07/09/2013 22:00

I think it's a shame that people feel they need to give an explanation at all.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 22:03

I guess so custard - I wouldn't even think of taking a buggy tbh (slings all the way for ease, especially as it's in central London) but I guess some would.

Pretty sure we are the only non family people actually with kids so maybe I'm just being extra prickly.

Don't think I'll be going either way.

OP posts:

YellowDinosaur · 07/09/2013 22:05

Actually it might be venue space. I'm pretty sure fire regulations are based on number of people full stop whether they are 1 day old or 100 years.

Yabu.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 22:06

Oh and they want me & DH to help out with part of the day, too.

I'd quite enjoy a day off from the toddler frankly, but the baby is BF and I'm not bothered about going enough to express then try and get her to take bottles just for that.

OP posts:

breatheslowly · 07/09/2013 22:07

Fire regulations are often the limiting factor, not actual physical space. So if fire regulations say 100, you can't just add children because they don't take up much room.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 22:08

Yellow - that's slightly bonkers imho but I guess it's plausible.

Ach, they are DH's mates anyway so he'll go and have a nice time and they'll have to deal with the overwhelming disappointment of me not being there

OP posts:

stiffstink · 07/09/2013 22:09

Ooooh, what do they want you to do?

Please say decorating the venue

YellowDinosaur · 07/09/2013 22:12

I agree its bonkers. But its the way it is. And actually I guess it is probably harder to evacuate a burning building with lots of small children who can't think / act for themselves than the same number of adults (assuming normal mobility etc). If you don't want to go without your bf baby that's totally understandable, just decline the invitation. But I wouldn't waste anymore energy on how the bride and groom have worded the invitation.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 22:12

Lol, no, not decorating.

(Worried about outing myself/identifying myself to them if they happen to be reading)

OP posts:

BrokenSunglasses · 07/09/2013 22:14

YANBU.

People choose their venues based on the number of people they want to invite. If they want to be able to invite children, then they choose a venue big enough to accommodate children. If they're not bothered about children, or how their guests feel about their children being there, then they will choose a smaller venue.

When people don't want babes in arms there, it's usually because they are worried they will cry or make noise during the ceremony.

IThinkOfHappyWhenIThinkOfYou · 07/09/2013 22:15

Agree, it's probably fire regs. For our school plays you have to get a baby ticket for dcs under 2 for the same reason

Helltotheno · 07/09/2013 22:53

I think it's a shame that people feel they need to give an explanation at all.

All things considered, this.

Annunziata · 07/09/2013 22:56

My SIL is having a children's table and there isn't 'space' for all of my DC at it. At least they'd take up a seat though, how silly for a baby.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 07/09/2013 22:58

Indeed, that was kind of the point of the thread. Just say, we don't want kids there except immediate family. End of.

And accept that parents of young BF babies, or others without childcare, may well decline.

I guess it may genuinely be as PPs have said, that the baby would tip them over the number of people for fire regs, in which case I absolutely accept I am BU.

OP posts:

zatyaballerina · 07/09/2013 23:55

Babies are too unpredictable, most people don't want a screaming baby drowning out the wedding vows and too many parents can't be trusted to take them out (even those who do may not be fast enough). Also, most people do take buggy's with them which takes up space.

I think if there are too many babies/kids it ruins the atmosphere, who wants to waste thousands on a party with a playgroup feel? If everyone you know breeds, the kids and babies could easily outnumber actual guests, so they're not necessarily lying about the venue size although that's the politest excuse for 'we don't want your kids' as so many overly precious parents get into a huff about their little darlings not being welcomed.

Original poster

VinegarDrinker · 08/09/2013 06:25

Oh I can think of plenty of reasons why they might not want our kids there, but I'd rather they were just honest about it!

(And As I said upthread, I'm pretty sure we are the only friends of theirs who actually have kids yet.)

OP posts:

claraschu · 08/09/2013 06:36

YANBU I hate stupid excuses for things like this.

It is easy to tell the difference between someone who desperately wants to do something, but can't (because of some act of God / force of nature / absurd non negotiable regulation), and someone making a lame excuse.

(I also hate weddings without babies and children.)

QueenofKelsingra · 08/09/2013 07:22

It is not a stupid excuse - its not about the space its about insurance and fire regs. I worked as a venue wedding planner, maximum numbers for insurance and fire regs must include all children and babies. so if they are at the maximum they would have to sacrifice an adult guest for each babe in arms.

(personally I think it is ludicris to expect a mother to come without her newborn but that doesn't change the above fact)

littlestgirlguide · 08/09/2013 10:29

When we got married, we had a strict limit of 36 people in the room we had the ceremony in, because of the fire regs. Of the 36 places, 2 were bride an groom, 2 were the registrar and her assistant, and one ha to be reserved in case a member of the public wanted to come in, which left space for exactly 31 guests, regardless of their age and size. It was fine for us as no oft we wanted to invite had children anyway except DH's teen daughters and my teen cousins, but in this case venue size was definitely a genuine reason.
I would have just been honest though!

Flip