to be confused about wedding invite regarding baby

[sixtylicious]

We have been invited to a good friend of DH's wedding in a couple of months, I am friendly with the couple too, and have been looking forward to their big day.

The invite arrived and stated that they are not able to accommodate children (which is fine, of course, their day), and that unless 'nursing a newborn' babies are not invited either. This is less fine, potentially because I am just being selfish, but our DD will be 3 months old at their wedding, and I do not want to leave her behind. In actual fact I don't think there is any option for us to leave her as I'm not sure my parents would want to be responsible for her, and I don't think I could bear to leave her even if they were keen.

Do you think a three month old counts as a newborn still? And does it matter that we'll be bottle feeding her rather than breast feeding?

I'd really value some other opinions on how I should interpret the invite and whether I should worry about taking along a three month old, before I get in touch with them to clarify.

OP, sorry you are feeling so down. I think the wording is ambiguous so would definitely ask. IME people only get pissed off if guests persist in asking for special treatment for their kids when the position has already been made completely clear. The different interpretations of the invite on this thread show that is not the case here.

PS I recently took my 3 week old to a no kids wedding -special dispensation from the couple as I was a bridesmaid and wouldn't have been able to go otherwise. I was wary about having such a little one at a wedding (partly based on a crap experience with his older brother at a non child free wedding) but it was great and so many people wanted to cuddle him that I actually got a nice break! He was also good as gold during the marriage ceremony and speeches. Just to show you that it can work although of course he was a lot younger than yours will be. We just kept him up with us til the end of the night putting him down to sleep in his carry cot when he felt like it (he was so young he had no routine).

Good luck whatever you decide.

If I were you I'd get your DH to say "Oh we'd love to come, but unfortunately we can't leave the baby as she's so little, and obviously I wouldn't want to come without sixtylicious.."

The B&G will either say "Thanks for letting us know" (which means they don't want ANY children there) or "Don't be silly, bring her along - we meant we'd rather not have kids running around and knocking stuff over." (which means they'd love you to come and they didn't mean you when they said no kids.)

Problem solved.

Airy me - spot on.

OP - please don't do the PA approach recommended by above poster and others. Just clarify the invite - it's evidently not 100% clear if posters are variously interpreting 'newborn' and 'nursing'

Do what Word smith suggests. If you ask them straight out if your baby can come, they may feel obliged to say yes and that's unfair. I think its fairly clear that they don't want any children or babies there. They have been slightly ambiguous with their wording but I don't really blame them, considering some of the responses on here! They obviously don't want to hurt or offend anyone either.

And the comments about how they will 'get it' in a few years when they have kids of their own are just really smug and unhelpful.

I wouldn't have wanted to leave my first baby at 3 months either. Just ask them OP. We went to a wedding abroad at 5 months and my parents came and looked after the baby during the wedding. I popped up to the room in the evening to see her. Would something like that be a possibility? You might feel comfortable with that kind of set up at 3 months (although that is hard to imagine when your baby is only 4 weeks). Hope it all gets sorted out

MiscellaneousAssortment I think it's pretty much the same that every wedding related one has to have 'bridezilla' whether the bride is involved or even knows about the situation: it's very very rarely groomzilla or anyone else who is automatically blamed.

Women always get the blame, one way or another, it's unfair if it's an assumption and not shown by the OP or updates to be fair there are some bridezillas shown on other threads though certainly not enough to automatically scream 'bridezilla' at every thread (which often unfairly happens) when it could be guest/groom/PIL/Pzilla. Just the same that because a couple of people have said on the thread and on other threads that they'd take babies regardless of B&G wishes doesn't mean the OP will, especially as she's been clear she won't.

I think it sounds more like they're trying to accommodate babies being breasted but I completely understand not wanting to leave your lo at that age. I think Wordpress' idea was good.