Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
whois · 17/06/2014 08:48

I don't think you're U to be annoyed at the differing treatment.

I've told my DH to go as he has known the Groom for a very long time - but DH is saying he won't attend as in his eyes, we are a family and if his wife isn't welcome just because we have a 5month old then he won't be going either!

That's just a bit petty tho.

Orangeisthenewbanana · 17/06/2014 08:50

This has caused my sister nightmares recently. She gets married next month & if everyone's children had been invited, there would have been about 40 - a third of their total numbers. Only 2 children are going, my DD and her fiancee's cousins child (18 months and 4 years respectively), so close family only.

Two of their friends got in a bit of a huff when they asked if they could bring their 6 month old and were told no. My DSIS asked if I would have been annoyed to be asked not to take DD to a wedding. My honest answer was no, but I would probably be a bit miffed if I turned up to find that others (apart from close family) had been allowed to bring theirs just because they kicked up a fuss. Children/no children, it's bride & groom's decision but you have to have the same rule for everyone.

Pobblewhohasnotoes · 17/06/2014 08:51

Actually I agree with some of the above.

Did you say 'I can't leave DS' or did you actually explain that your baby is EBF?

The two can be taken very differently.

PringleJess · 17/06/2014 08:54

I agree with stripedtortise I think they're being quite rude & I wouldn't go either. I also think it's great that your DH is supporting you as a family unit.

I get that there are sometimes cost restraints if there are loads of children, but as your baby will cost them nothing I can't see the reasoning behind this.

To me babies & marriage go hand in hand & unless the balance of adult guest to child guests is wrong I'm not really sure why people would want to do this?

BerylStreep · 17/06/2014 09:00

I think YABU.

You posted earlier that you 'weren't allowed to go'. Utter rubbish. You have been invited, your baby has been invited to the church, but not to the reception.

I honestly think you are both being a bit self absorbed, and tbh it doesn't even sound as if you like the B&G anyway.

I was Shock that anyone would respond to a wedding invite by text, especially such a passive aggressive one.

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:01

I think there is a difference between 3 and 5 month olds - a 3 month old still sleeps a lot, is just on milk. A 5 month old is likely to be on solids, grabbing things, parents might want a highchair, makes more mess.

A line has to be drawn somewhere.

PhaedraIsMyName · 17/06/2014 09:02

You're sounding hysterical. You texted her saying "you couldn't leave" your child. She took it at face value.(do people really decline wedding invitations by text?)

I much prefer child free weddings.

nipersvest · 17/06/2014 09:11

my guess is that the bride is now feeling a bit bullied. they've made the decision re no children, but pretty soon, everyone invited, who has children, is citing a special reason as to why they should be the exception to the rule. you may be getting no response as you are not the only ones asking, and given the wedding is in 2 months, the bride may have other things to deal with.

AmberLav · 17/06/2014 09:15

I don't really think there is much difference between a 3 month old and a 5 month old, neither will be throwing food!

We took DS to DH's cousin's wedding when he was 3 months. It was quite a long tiring day trying to keep him quiet, as he wouldn't sleep, but eventually he zonked out and slept in his carseat for most of the evening do. The wedding was about 5 hours from home, and it was a good occasion to show him of to DH's relatives, but if we had been closer to home, I think I'd have just gone to the service and drinks reception, and then headed home after that... Don't think it would have been any better if he'd been 5 months, but he would have interacted a bit more at 5 months...

I agree the B&G are being unfair, but then I think all the kids at our wedding helped make the day what it was... I'd planned it around having children there (my niece and nephew were 7 and 4) so everything worked nicely. NB - the cousin's wedding was also designed around children as they have two children...

Not sure I would have texted the B though!

SquirrelledAway · 17/06/2014 09:16

Also, by declining (by text? really???) what you've actually said is the marriage ceremony that you were invited to isn't what you're interested in, it's the party afterwards that's more important to you.

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:17

DC1 made a right mess with food at 5 months, as did most of my friend's children.

NeedsAsockamnesty · 17/06/2014 09:19

I wouldn't automatically expect a under 6 month old to be on solids

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:21

Most probably are though.

Thumbwitch · 17/06/2014 09:22

Well no, I don't think they would be fledermaus, as the current guidelines suggest solids shouldn't be introduced until 6m.

BauerTime · 17/06/2014 09:27

I haven't read all of the responses so apologies if i repeat what someone else had said but please stop saying that YOU aren't welcome/allowed to attend because you are. Its your baby who isn't.

Do you actually know all of the circumstances surrounding why this other child is welcome or are you just offended because yours isn't? My guess is that you declined your invite quite happily, this other couple spoke to the B&G and made arrangements to suit. If you declined then its quite possible that your spot has already been filled and its not as simple as just re-inviting you and your baby now. OR they have made this allowance for x reason but if they then extend this allowance to you then the flood gates open and they have to have everyone's little darlings there too.

I have a 10mo and what ive learnt in the last 10 months is that life is now much harder, not all social occasions can be attended and that DH and i have to adapt OUR lives to accommodate DS. The people around us do not have to adapt their lives to accommodate us in any way.

Ive just read that back and it sounds quite harsh but I'm sorry OP, that's life with a baby!

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:28

Not everyone follows guidelines! 75% of babies are on solids by 5 months in this country.

TheCraicDealer · 17/06/2014 09:32

I suspect the comment about “throwing food around” was just a term used to explain how they feel the presence of children would upset the day- crying, having to be removed from the ceremony/speeches, having to be walked and jiggled about the room, crawling around causing a tripping hazard, etc. That’s all fine if you’re up for it, but if you’re planning an adult event it’s not really going to work for you, is it?

You don’t know what’s going on with the other couple, maybe they can’t get a baby sitter. Maybe they explained nicely to the bride that they were anxious about leaving her and they extended the invite. If this do is a month or two away and the wean is only going to be three months at the wedding she’s got to be tiny right now. Your DS probably looks like the incredible hulk in comparison, much more robust. It’s harder for a non-parent to see why you would be reluctant to leave him for the day. Feeding etc. doesn’t matter as sure you can “just express and leave it with the babysitter”.

In summary- DH should go, you should speak to the bride and explain why you won’t be attending and see if that changes anything. Texting isn’t appropriate; you’ve been invited to their wedding, not Sunday lunch at the local Harvester.

Singsongmama · 17/06/2014 09:33

fledermaus - most 5 month babies should not be on solids. Some are as all babies are different but most shouldn't be according to guidelines. In the case of the OP I thin EBF means EBF.

Singsongmama · 17/06/2014 09:35

Where are stats from fledermaus? Just curious.

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:37

Doesn't really matter what they should be doing in this context though does it? I was simply pointing out why the B&G might make a distinction between 3 and 5 month old babies - most 3 month olds are just milk fed, aren't really moving about, sleep a lot. Most 5 month olds are having some solids, are more active, might need a highchair, are likely to make more mess. The B&G have to draw a line somewhere.

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:38

Have a look for the Infant Feeding Survey.

Singsongmama · 17/06/2014 09:42

Doesn't really matter what they should be doing in this context though does it? oh yes, that old chestnut that could also read - I just made it up to make my argument sound stronger.

I agree that a lot of babies at 5 months eat some solids but do as many as 75% of parents ignore the guidelines? Maybe Hmm

fledermaus · 17/06/2014 09:43

I work with parents and children under 5, and ime a large number are on solids by 16 weeks. The results of the Infant Feeding Survey seems to bear this out.

Singsongmama · 17/06/2014 09:46

Yes, I stand corrected, I've read the stats!

HaroldLloyd · 17/06/2014 09:47

This wouldn't bother me at all, if i couldnt go I couldnt go.

DP would go.

A line does have to be drawn somewhere, when and if I get married children would outnumber adults if I brought them all. It would be like a bloody soft play area. All the weddings I have gone to since we all started having children have been restricted to family children.

Maybe she is seeing a difference in a 3 month and 5 month, maybe its because she knows the other mother better, maybe its because she said yes to one baby and the flood gates have opened.