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

[Writerwannabe83]

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".

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....

Gaaah! If you don't want to express milk, or spend time away from your child, that's fine. Just don't tell people it's impossible to do so. These things are your choice.

Your DH is upset because, as he sees it, his good friend the groom is not being flexible for your family.

Others might see it that your family are not being flexible and are not doing all you can to make sure you can attend a good friend's wedding.

If it's that important that you attend the entire wedding, why don't you pick up the phone and explain the situation the bride or groom, whichever you're closer to?

I realise that you should have done this initially before sending the text to decline, however if it means that much to go, try at least to speak with one of them.

Or alternatively just enjoy the day at home with your LO and don't bear a grudge for the couple allowing this other child to go. You do not know the circumstances or the reasons why they have been allowed.

I would however say she was been treated unfairly if all the other parents were taking their children but her child was the only one not invited. That would be nfair but thats not the case though.

I dont think they are being unfair. Their wedding, their money they can do what they want. You can always express milk and leave baby at home

I don't see how my post was nasty but sorry if it was, it was just a point of view, maybe they are squeamish with breastfeeding...didn't op say that the other baby was bottle fed? Just a thought

You can take your baby to their wedding.

A reception wouldn't be all that much fun with a baby anyway.

I think no one is being unreasonable here really - just that the bride and groom are not as obsessed with the ins and outs of your baby as you are, understandably.

I'm pretty thoughtful, i think, but the level of reasoning about babies would have been beyond me before I had one.

It could be heavily influenced by the venue. At our wedding we were told babies/ high chairs would be counted as an adult and charged accordingly.

We had a similar experience in the Summer, kids welcome at church but not reception. The wedding was 3 hrs from home. I had arranged for my parents to stay at the hotel and babysit and had booked them a suite as a thank you! To cut a long story short, my mum ruptured her Achilles getting off a train en route to the venue and was taken to hospital in an ambulance. None of my relatives were able to babysit so we ended up getting someone from the hotel to babysit just because DS wasn't allowed to the meal.At the end of each course, I went up to check on him and as soon as dessert was finished I retired to the bedroom. The next morning the bride said " You should have just brought him to the meal!"

So if I were you I would let your Dh go and enjoy the peace at home as our relaxing day out proved to be anything but !

Is there clarification yet as to the bottle/breast situation?

You have apparently done all of the following:

1. Bottle refuser. Baby will not take a bottle of expressed milk, and you don't want him "force fed with a syringe"

1. You "don't want" to give your baby bottles at all.

1. You have expressed previously and your husband has been able to administer the bottle so you can sleep.

1. You bought formula but couldn't bring yourself to use it at the last minute.

Regardless, you have also switched between being a good friend of the bride, who invited you to the hen weekend and you suspect is pissed off that you're not going. Further down the thread she is not a particularly close friend of yours, it is her husband to be and your husband who are friends.

It's all very confusing, but with regards to the original aibu, yes you are.
You declined the invitation because you won't go without your son - fair enough, your prerogative.
It's not your wedding, your baby's feeding method is of no concern to the bride.
She's got enough to be getting het up about without pandering to a guest's sensibilities (a guest that isn't a close friend of hers).

Let it go.

Look if you really don't want to express, mixed feed, or use a bottle at all, ever then that's absolutely fine. No-one cares two stuffs what you do or don't do, really. But you have to accept that by limiting yourself to only ever feeding straight from the breast that your lifestyle and your day to day choices and freedoms will be limited, probably for quite some time.

It is not everyone else's job to run around enabling you, and making life easier for you because you have chosen to give yourself some very specific limitations, especially not on their wedding day. They have more important things to worry about. Either compromise and go, or don't go and shut up about it.

I really, really am ok about not going.
I really don't mind if the B&G still aren't happy for DS to go even knowing he is breast fed.

I never said in my OP that I was pissed off that I wasn't going as I have no problem with people wanting child free weddings. My thread was only about whether it was unfair that it was one rule for me but another rule for someone else. If any of my posts read as though I was angry that I wasn't going then apologies if they did, but I genuinely am fine about not going.

I will definitely still go to the Wedding - can't decide whether to take DS though, probably not as I'd be mortified if he started making noise and I had to take him out. I really do want to see them get married.

DH has stopped going on about it now as I think he realises that moaning about it to me is pointless. I think he thinks he's being 'manly' by saying he isn't going if I'm not when really he's just being stupid, as I keep telling him

My thread was only about whether it was unfair that it was one rule for me but another rule for someone else

No, it's not unfair because they get to choose for any reason or no reason. Fairness implies that they have an obligation to you, and they don't.

Exactly Apocalypse. As I said upthread, wedding invitations and the conditions attached are always weighted by the relative importance of the guest in question. We can't possibly know what the reasons were for the B&G allowing the other couple to bring their baby, but it's irrelevant really because they don't have to justify it to anyone else.

YANBU- It's up to you if you don't feel ready to leave your baby just as its the B&G decision to include/exclude babies. You declined the invitation (all be it by text ) they accepted this and have, most likely filled your place.

Your DH is BU. He needs to stop badgering the groom about this and let it go. You've presumably made the decision that your baby can't be left together so he should just accept that it means you can't go. TBH I'm guessing he just really wants you there. I'd be a bit pissed off at having to go to a wedding alone but it's by no means the B&G fault!

I'm not sure I'd attend the wedding either. People will ask about the reception etc and if you say that you're "not welcome" or "not allowed" they will either think you're being a martyr or the B&G are being unfair- it really wouldn't be right to put that on them. If you do go(and this goes for your dh) you can't hold a grudge about this.

I really do think that if you'd picked up the phone and said 'look, DC is BF, he won't be eating solids and will probably sleep a lot. I'd love to come but I can't leave him all day' then the bride probably would have said yes. But you just declined. Backtracking later is too late - they've probably filled your space.

The other couple probably did make that call and that's why they've been allowed to bring their baby. It's not one rule for them and one for you, it's probably just that one couple communicated better.

I think I would not go and just have dh go.
All the faffing of being allowed to one bit and not another would be too much hassle for me. I would find that stressful and not enjoyable unless perhaps the wedding was on my doorstep/ very local.

ginnels - I really didn't want to call her because I knew I'd be putting her on the spot. I didn't want her to feel pressured. I don't know if I could still say, "Tough, baby can't come" to a mother over the phone. I would actually feel quite cheeky about trying to wangle an invite for my DS to a child free wedding. I'm guessing if the other couple did do that they they have more front than me

At that time of the invite I thought it was a child free wedding and was happy to accept that hence why I didn't try and force an invite for DS out of them. I'm still happy to accept I can't go. The couple know I'm breast feeding and still will be at the time of the wedding and I said that I can't go because I can't leave DS, so they know the score and have done for a while now. If Bride still isn't happy for me to bring DS then fine, I accept that.

We are meant to be going to B&G's house tonight - God I hope there's no tension!

Fair enough writer, I can understand that. I just think that this is a case of 'don't ask don't get', rather than the B+G playing favourites.

Just read all of this, and I think the OP is def not being unreasonable. I see absolutely no logic in why a three month old baby can go but a five month old cannot - both are very young and both difficult to leave, esp if breast feeding. The fact the mother of the 3 month old went on the 3 day hen do when the OP did not also 'proves' that her baby can be left with others and yet the OPs was still not invited. So I can see why the OP is annoyed and I would be too! I do agree with other posters that I bet the reason for the different 'rules' is because the mother of the 3 months old moaned where as the OP did not -if ifs actually due to the hen do then the bride is being incredibly petty. I also don't think the text response was rude at all - texting is like chatting these days.

I also have to admit unlike other posters I really don't understand child free weddings and I never ever have (including before I had my son). Weddings in my book are family celebrations and families include children. I also totally get the feeling hurt when your child is not invited - your child is part of you and if you have recently become a mother its like what you have become, this important part of you is being rejected. I know some people may think me over the top but there you go. I would never seek to change a bride or grooms mind though about their decision to not invite children, but I think that there is absolutely nothing wrong in letting them know its because of issues around childcare / leaving the kid that you chose not to go. I know of a few friends who had child-free weddings back before they had children and have since rather regretted and felt quite shameful re. how they expected those with young babies to not come - as others have said before you have children you really have no idea what is like! My cousin recently had a kid free wedding. My son is 2 and can be left but the wedding was in Scotland and we are in London and my mum (best baby sitting option) was also going. I felt uncomfortable leaving him with my mother in law (the best alternative option) for 3 days (which is what the trip would have amounted to) partly because it was a lot to ask of her and partly because he doesn't know her as well as my mum. I therefore, like another cousin and my sister, declined the invite. I was not that bothered - its not like I know him that well and not going saved me quite a bit of money (I guess if I really wanted to go I could have gone alone or paid for a baby sitter there) but I was quite glad when I heard that his step dad had told him that he would live to regret his decision of a child-free wedding, particularly as it meant quite a few family members could not be there.

However, for the OP its probably time to put the thing to bed, accept she cannot go and also encourage her DH to go without her to avoid any bad feelings and be the better people . . .

I don't think anyone should feel 'shameful' that they plumped for a child free wedding.

Jesus Christ.

'I was quite glad when I heard that his step dad had told him that he would live to regret his decision of a child-free wedding.'

Are you always this melodramatic?

Jeeez, and I hope he told his step dad to mind his own business.

If (when?) I get married

I have 16 adult nieces and nephews plus their partners.

Then with their children, my great nieces and nephews, there would be 19 children.

I don't see that I could invite all of those, plus OHs family children (around 5 of them) plus friends children (around 8 of those).

We'd have a wedding that was almost 50% children.

That would not be what I'd enjoy. The invitations would cut off at nieces/nephews and not go on to the next generation. If they didn't like it, tough.

They weren't shameful re. the childfree wedding, just felt very bad that they expected someone with an under 6 month old baby to leave that baby with someone else. I can see why - now that i have had a breastfed baby who was rather boob obsessed and would never take a bottle I feel bloody awful about the times when I tried to berate a good friend who was the first of my friends to have a kid to come out with us / not take her baby to things.

and why was I melodramatic - I just heard on the grape vine of his step dad's comment and thought, based on the experience of some friends, too true and I bet he will feel that way once he's had a kid or 2. hardly melodrama

'I also totally get the feeling hurt when your child is not invited - your child is part of you and if you have recently become a mother its like what you have become, this important part of you is being rejected. I know some people may think me over the top but there you go.'

Yep. I'd definitely classify that as melodramatic.

Plenty of people have child free weddings and never ever come to regret or feel shameful about them. Despite what other people might wish.

Well sometimes at weddings you need one rule for some people and one for others.

I went to a wedding recently at a venue which counted babes in arms as part of the overall headcount, which was strictly policed for fire safety purposes. Several people asked to bring babies but the b&g just couldn't say yes to everyone. So some family and close friends got to bring their babies, others didn't. It REALLY doesn't matter in the big scheme of things - you seem to be overthinking all of this terribly.