Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

I can't take my baby to a wedding but someone else can...

438 replies

Writerwannabe83 · 16/06/2014 23:56

One of my DH's good friends is getting married in 2 months time. When they handed out their invites they said children are welcome to be at the church ceremony but are unable to attend the meal and the evening reception.

That's fine, I have absolutely no problem with child-free weddings.

I have a baby that I EBF so I text the bride and declined the invite and said it because I couldn't leave DS. DS will have just turned 5 months at the time of the wedding. I didn't get a reply from her.

My DH is felt quite aggrieved as he wasn't comfortable with the fact that me and DS couldn't go seeing as DS will not need a seat or food so won't be affecting their guest numbers or cost. But anyway, like I said, I have no problem if the B&G choose child free weddings.

However, it has now transpired another couple who have a baby are being allowed to take theirs because "he will only be 3 months old".

Hmm

Since learning this my DH has spoken to the Groom who has said he will speak to the bride. The Groom said of course he wanted me to be at the wedding but apparently the bride had said she didn't want babies/children present as she didn't want food being thrown around the room?!

Do 5 month old babies do that?
(DS is my first so I have no experience of a baby's fine dining etiquette).

He also said she probably wasn't aware I'd still be BF.

It's been five days now since my DH spoke to his friend and we still haven't heard anything back do I'm guessing the bride said no and we are still not welcome.

I don't know how I feel about it all now - surely if she is banning babies it should apply to all babies? I think it's a bit unfair that I'm being turned away but another mother and her baby aren't.

(Incidentally the other baby is being formula fed so can technically be away from her parents.)

I'm happy to be told I'm BU - I just think it's a bit harsh that my baby isn't welcome but someone else's is....

OP posts:
Nicknacky · 18/06/2014 08:31

Have you read the thread, Hacksmum? If the op's child comes then is it fair someone else's 12 month old isn't invited, or someone's five year old? They have to draw a line, and it's their wedding to invite who they want

I feel sorry for the bride. The op's husband has now asked the H to be, and when the answer is "no" then it looks like it's down to the bride alone, it's a joint decision between the couple. Why does the bride have to look bad?

And the suggestion up thread that the bride could be "squeamish" about breasts feeding......good lord

fluffyraggies · 18/06/2014 08:52

Concentrating purely on the question of 'child free weddings': folk are saying it's hard to draw a line. I would have thought a fairly easy line to draw would be babe-in-arms - yes, toddlers and up - no. A really small baby being carried all day long doesn't contribute to numbers in any way.

Am i right the wedding is in 2 months time? I'm guessing the B&G thought that maybe OP's 5 month old would be old enough to be looked after by someone else at 7 months, but that the other mothers 3 month old would still only be 5 months old by the wedding so might have more need to be with it's mum?

hackmum · 18/06/2014 08:54

"Have you read the thread, Hacksmum? If the op's child comes then is it fair someone else's 12 month old isn't invited, or someone's five year old? They have to draw a line, and it's their wedding to invite who they want."

Well, a babe in arms doesn't cost anything and doesn't take up any space, which I'd have thought was the main consideration when it comes to excluding children.

But why do they have to draw a line anyway? I think people who ban children from weddings are insufferably precious and self-centred, and if they're not prepared to be a little flexible for the sake of old friends and their five month old baby, they're not friends in the sense that most people would use the term.

Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 08:55

bquer - the other mother is going to be away from her baby for 3 days when she goes on the Hen Do. Her baby will be staying with Grandma.

I haven't asked the bride and groom to change their plans. I was criticised for not explaining to the Bride about my feeding issue yet DH has been criticised because he has explained it to the Groom. So obviously on that issue we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

OP posts:
Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 08:56

Fluffy - *my baby will have just turned 5 months at the time of the wedding.

OP posts:
JohnnyBarthes · 18/06/2014 08:58

Indeed, BauerTime.

fluffyraggies · 18/06/2014 09:00

Oh right! sorry. well that's my theory out of the water then Grin

Cravey · 18/06/2014 09:03

Stop pestering for an invite. Step away and realise they don't have to have your baby there. It's simple. It really is. No matter how unfair you believe it to me. It's what they want. So it's tough.

Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 09:05

cravey - please show me where I have pestered for an invite?? I haven't even spoken to the bride since I decline the invite.

OP posts:
Cravey · 18/06/2014 09:08

Ok then. I will rephrase it. Stop whining. It's happened. You cannot change it. No matter how much you go on. Simple, their wedding. Their day and all that rubbish. Go out for the day with your baby. You will no doubt have more fun.

Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 09:18

I probably will have more fun Smile

The thing I'm worried about, that I don't want to happen, is for there be any ill feeling. My DH is very good friends with the Groom so will feel disappointed if he says that no, DS (and effectively me) can't come. I may not be close friends with the bride but he is with the Groom and I think it will upset my DH to think his good friend won't make an allowance for DS to enable me to go yet an allowance has been made for another couple. Also I don't want it to be awkward between me, the bride and the other mother. I get on really well with the other mother and would hate for her to think I have as issue with her because she's allowed to take her baby but I can't take mine.

As another poster said, the invites are down to the bride and groom. If an allowance is made for a good friend of the bride then an allowance should be allowed to take place for the good friend of the a Groom (in DH's eyes).

OP posts:
BerylStreep · 18/06/2014 09:27

But the only people making an issue out of it are you and your DH.

The invite said children welcome at the church, but no children at the reception.

You queried with the bride if that meant DS could come to the meal, and she clarified no, however she said she would provide details later to enable childcare to be arranged.

You texted that in that case, you wouldn't be attending.

Your DH has spoken to the groom to discuss your feeding arrangements, and the ball is now 'in the B&G court'.

Based on the information on the thread, it does appear that you are pestering for an invite, and making an issue that the other baby is allowed to come.

I've been at plenty of child free weddings where guests have brought a relative / babysitter and the baby, and they have stayed close by - hiring a room at the hotel to enable feeding. Have you thought of that as an alternative?

BauerTime · 18/06/2014 09:30

OP, i think that either you or DH going back to the bride or groom after you have already declined your invite could be construed as pestering for DS to be invited, whatever your intentions.

Plus, the fact that DH explained in person why you couldn't attend if DS couldn't after you had already declined doesn't change the fact that you actually RSVP'ed by text. That's what posters are trying to say, not saying that texting or explaining are both wrong.

FWIW we actually asked people to rsvp however they wanted, email, phonecall, text, whatever. I didn't put RSVP cards in the invite and i didn't want people to go to the hassle having to go out and get one and post it do a text would have been fine with me and actually my preference!

Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 09:33

We did consider staying overnight and having someone stay with DS and then me popping up to feed as necessary but there are only 7 rooms available at the venue and they have been allocated to the family - which is fair enough.

I'm really to making an issue of it, my DH is far more bothered than I am Smile I haven't asked for any changes to be made to the plan and nor has DH. I really am fine about not going. I doubt very much the B&G even know we know the other baby is coming and I don't think the other couple know our DS can't come. The only way we know about it is because the father of the other baby made reference to the Wedding to my DH and implied their baby was going too.

I wonder if the other couple did ring and ask if their baby could come - I would never have the cheek to do that Smile

OP posts:
Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 09:34

bauer - there were no RSVP cards in with these invites either, which I was actually surprised about. All the invite said was to let them know before 'x' date.

OP posts:
Original poster
Writerwannabe83 · 18/06/2014 09:35

I meant to say in my first post that I'm really not making an issue of it to the B&G.

OP posts:
SuperFlyHigh · 18/06/2014 09:36

Look OP tell your DH to have a word with the groom - not angle for an invite, plead your case etc but just a friendly chat, drink whatever.

If the groom (and like you say the groom is involved in this) reiterates what his bride says and no baby then just accept it, and advise your DH to accept it too.

if your DH is so pigheaded to after all this, then throw a strop, argue the toss about whether his baby can come etc then it just shows him in a bad light to be honest and to his friend.

Cravey · 18/06/2014 09:38

If there's an issue or ill feeling from it then it's coming from you I think. Let it go. Honestly you really will have a nicer time having a day out with your baby.

TheNewStatesman · 18/06/2014 09:39

I know the OP has made her decision, but just wanted to add for the purposes of general information: there is usually no need for an EBF mother to drag a breastpump around with her if she is only going to be away from her baby for four hours--especially once the baby is already 5mo or so.

You just feed the baby before you go, and if you do get a little "full," you just pop into the loo, express some milk into tissues (give your hands a good clean first!) and flush the tissues when you're done. Easy.

Not telling the OP what to do since she has already decided what to do, but I just wanted to mention this in the spirit of "Seriously, EBF Is Not As Complicated As Some MN Threads Seem To Make Out...."

overthemill · 18/06/2014 09:39

It seems odd but maybe they think 3 month old babies are quieter than 5 month old ones? I think it's strange but some people want those odd kind of posh castle weddings where people wear designer crap and drink cocktails sedately. I guess noisy kids would fit the vibe! It's a shame for your DH but move on

SuperFlyHigh · 18/06/2014 09:51

over it's also the B&G decision too though, not the guests decision.

I find it silly them arguing the toss.

As OP says in her original thread her DH is the main friend of the groom, she knows and is a friend of the bride but doesn't appear to be close to her, maybe that could be a reason for not including baby to reception. who knows?

slithytove · 18/06/2014 09:52

apocalypse

Thought you meant it was something I said hence my confusion.

I'm not gleeful hand rubbing wishing unhappiness on anyone. But some understanding wouldn't go amiss, and I think that often comes when one becomes a parent themselves.

I have no issue with child free weddings btw. I do have an issue with OP being pulled apart because she is confused that there is one rule for one babe in arms and another for hers. And an issue that somehow OP and her DH are being unfair to the Bride.

I have no doubt that if the bride was one day in this situation, she would look back and understand better. As we all do with the benefit of hindsight.

slithytove · 18/06/2014 09:56

And as for the comments like "learn to express", "teach baby to take a bottle" and the almost criticism for not leaving a bf baby - not on.

Firstly, when I had kids I was happy to not be away from them for 6 months. It's not long out of life, it's what I signed up for, and they were easy to cart about at that age. I don't criticise anyone from taking a break from their baby, don't criticise others who don't.

Ditto for weaning before 6 months. Not everyone wants to give their baby milky cereal at 4.5 months.

And yet again, not everyone can express. I couldn't even with a hospital pump. But feel free to come over and lecture my boobs on how difficult they are being. Equally, my baby would not take a bottle until he was about 7 months.

I wouldn't and couldn't have left my 5 month old, and that is just as valid as someone who would and could.

slithytove · 18/06/2014 10:01

Oh and I never found ebf complicated, it was fab, no carting around bottle stuff. For all those concerned that ebf is being portrayed badly. It also worked as instant comfort as well as food. Only annoying thing was the expressing thing, and that wasn't the end of the world.

SquirrelledAway · 18/06/2014 10:11

OP, in one of your previous threads you said you were expressing so that your DH could give the baby a feed during the day while you napped. Did this not work out?