Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Sending wedding invitations to guests who will likely be breastfeeding

109 replies

DiDiddlyIDi · 30/04/2015 06:36

Apologies for a wedding related question, but I have searched threads on here and not come up with an answer. We are getting married this summer and there will be some day guests with babies. One with a 2week old, another with a 10 week old and another 12 week old (if all due dates go to plan) Am I right to understand that we must invite the baby along? (for clarity I think we must but I want to check)

Is it a given that nursing mothers expect their baby to be invited?
Given that all of these guests will be travelling over 200 miles to the wedding. In fact 2 are coming from overseas but grandparents are in the UK, so they will be able to leave them with their grandparents (total assumption here) but they will still realistically not be with baby for a minimum of 30 hours.

Also regarding evening guests, we have one with a 16 month old coming from overseas who has no relatives in the UK, I am sure we must invite their child? We have another 2 guests with babies under 6 months (assume still breastfeeding), I guess we really should invite them. But then what will the people with 11 months old think? Oh I am so confused and want everyone to come and everyone to be happy but we were also quite set on no children apart from nieces and nephews. For context the guest list is running at 270 without babies (we originally wanted 130 day and extra 50 at night, but my mother has run away with the guest list and is filling it up like the electoral roll)

OP posts:
Iloveonionchutney · 30/04/2015 08:36

We didn't put anything on our invites about children, all my family were travelling so leaving there children behind wasn't an option so we put the family children on the invites too. For friends I spoke to the ones with children and said we were having family kids but needed to keep numbers down so if they fancied a day off to book the babysitters. They all jumped at the chance for a night off. I did however say I would rather have them there with the children than not at all and if babysitters weren't an option to bring them along. We had 16 in the end by it definitely worked better to speak to them.

cheeseandpineapple · 30/04/2015 08:45

I liked what Bumpandbaby suggested.

Surprised by some people up in arms about it. Not sure how the suggestion of a night out without children is offensive or patronising and for those who can't contemplate an event without their child or children the note gives them the option to raise it and you can agree something case by case.

That should cover both camps and would lead me to think that unless I had good reason, I should not plan to bring my children and if I had a reason why I wanted to bring them, the note shows the bride is sympathetic and wants to be flexible depending on the situation.

All the best with your wedding bump, hope you have a fun party!

Cupoftchaiagain · 30/04/2015 08:48

We really wanted children at our wedding and I was quite surprised at those who didn't want to bring their preschoolers, now I get it! But from personal point of view I would always want to bring dd anywhere I went that was child friendly, and would just want the hosts to be clear whether it was or not.

goodnessgraciousgouda · 30/04/2015 08:51

OP - It really depends on what you and the groom want.

And then you should TELL your parents of your decision.

If you don't want children there, then have a "no children under 12" policy.

But if you do that, then you have to accept that some of your guests with younger children will choose not to come.

As a pp pointed out, it may well be that people travelling very long distances might not be able to make it anyway - it sounds quite stressful travelling over 200 miles with a baby for example. Or one person might find that their baby is looking a bit peaky and decide to go to the doctors instead of the wedding. I mean, they are all normal reasons for people not to go.

You aren't obligated to invite anybody to your wedding (and I think it's really sad that your parents are steam rollering you over guest lists).

GloGirl · 30/04/2015 08:54

My friend is having a very similar no children wedding.

Your logic is pretty much the same as hers and I think reasonable enough. You'd have to be an arsehole to complain on the day.

Sounds like there is nothing you will do about the numbers, so just have fun, feel loved and blessed during your small village wedding! Grin

PrimroseEverdeen · 30/04/2015 09:07

Babes in arms generally means babies under 12 months. I have a breast fed 11 month old and there is no way I would be able to attend without him. Most babies under a year would likely still be breastfeeding.

IWantDogger · 30/04/2015 09:10

In your circumstances ie. Large guest list, what sounds like large venue, doesn't sound like budget is a massive issue if dm is inviting loads etc. I'd probably just include all kids on invitations. I've always been quite touched when kids have been included and very often decided myself to leave them behind if it's possible. Surely easier than talking to lots of parents individually? Basically don't assume just because kids are included on invite people will bring them.

AggressiveBunting · 30/04/2015 09:13

We said something like "Sorry, but due to restricted numbers we cannot accommodate children with the exception of babes in arms". There were 4 "babes in arms" who were invited and actually only 1 came (3 wk old- was this couple's third child). of the others, two of the mums didn't come (6 wks post-partum with first child. I'd have felt the same tbh) and one couple with a 10 wk old declined as was a long journey- again totally understandable. No-one kicked off about not being able to bring older children, although child free weddings are the norm in our circle, so a lot depends on that I think.

charlestonchaplin · 30/04/2015 09:13

Well, I couldn't find a definition of 'babes in arms' in terms of age on a quick google, so I would say that if you put that on the invitations be prepared for a lot of creative definitions by guests.

formerbabe · 30/04/2015 09:15

Its your wedding so if you don't want children or babies there then say so... Just don't get pissed off if people can't attend!

I never take my kids to weddings...I always get a babysitter. Its the bride and grooms day and I don't want the stress of making sure my kids don't run, talk over the speeches, spill a drink etc etc!

littlejohnnydory · 30/04/2015 09:20

The ones with the tiny babies won't be able to leave them if breastfeeding.

I wouldn't have left an 11 month old but plenty of people do and will. At that point it is a choice not to leave them. So I would have declined the invitation if baby couldn't come but wouldn't have thought you unreasonable at all.

my2centsis · 30/04/2015 09:23

I wouldn't come

Bunbaker · 30/04/2015 09:24

I'm in the minority here, but I find the idea of child free weddings odd. Both of our families tend to make weddings family affairs with maybe the odd friend or two rather than invite hundreds of friends.

I was only 22 when we got married and only SIL had children anyway, and OH and I didn't have lots of friends so it wasn't an issue for us.

Sallyingforth · 30/04/2015 09:25

270 guests? Bloody hell. What a nightmare.
I hope your marriage can survive your wedding.
Good luck.

Heels99 · 30/04/2015 09:30

Babes in arms and fsmily children only, fine.
270 people is bonkers. Seriously. Have the wedding you want not the wedding your mother wants, she has had her wedding, this is yours.

Flingmoo · 30/04/2015 09:31

Agree that breastfeeding mums of young babies will be having burning hot burstingly full boobs if they don't feed their baby for hours and hours... You would be making it very unpleasant for them, while everyone else is having a lovely time they'll potentially be stooped over in a cubicle squeezing milk out into a toilet bowl...

At the stage where his age was still counted in weeks, I would not have been happy to leave my baby for more than a couple of hours (my preference by the way, not saying that's the way it should be)

I know some people might disagree but 200+ guests at a wedding is totally insane IMHO, unless you're a head of state! You won't even get a glance at half of them, let alone the chance to say hello or thanks for coming.

WLondonMum · 30/04/2015 09:32

We said no children but then I contacted anyone with a baby and said of course that excluded them and what could we do to help. We also invited another older child who was coming from abroad and didn't get to spend much time with his father. I was really happy with this solution as we just couldn't have children as the numbers would have doubled. A number of guests (who did have children) afterwards told me that it was great to have an adult night. Only one person that I know of was disappointed their (teenage) children weren't there. We did also make sure our wedding was in the same city as the majority of our guests and the day wasn't too long. I would have felt uncomfortable asking people to travel any distance without their children

KnockMeDown · 30/04/2015 09:35

Hi OP - you say you are quite set on no children - can I ask why? Is it for numbers/costs, or would you prefer not to have rowdy kids during proceedings?

Of your 270, how many will have children that they would want to bring? If you can make an educated guess at this, it will give you an idea of what you are dealing with. If the venue is large, and purse strings perhaps not so restricted, could there be a side room with a DVD running to keep them occupied?

I can't help feeling that with 270 guests, a few extra kids here and there really won't make that much difference - by the evening you may find all the kids falling asleep, and rowdy adults taking over Grin....

Alibabsandthe40Musketeers · 30/04/2015 09:36

If people from overseas have already booked flights and accommodation, then you cannot now turn around and tell them that their children aren't welcome at the wedding at that they need to find childcare.

If you have said from the first mention of the wedding - no children - then that is fine because everyone has the correct expectation.

neepsandtatties · 30/04/2015 09:37

"The wedding will be child free, although we appreciate this would make attendance impossible for some parents with babes-in-arms, or those travelling from overseas. As such, please let us know if you need to bring your baby and we will try and accommodate - it is important to us to have you there!"

Stubbed · 30/04/2015 09:43

By the way it is unreasonable for you to expect mothers to leave very young babies for more than a couple of hours. Some will be fine with that but very many won't. I wouldn't have gone to a wedding with my children til they were 8 months or so (and even then I had to pop back and forth to feed my bottle refuser)

Stubbed · 30/04/2015 09:46

Sorry I meant without my children. And dd was ill and very small, so I was still feeding her even at 10 months when she's been walking for a couple of months, she'd have been a nightmare at a wedding

MissBattleaxe · 30/04/2015 09:50

I'd just like to add that the parents who "cannot leave their older children" etc, very often do not have child care. We were in this position for several years and genuinely could not have gone to weddings. It wasn't a protest or a boycott, we always declined with good grace and no bad feeling.

I just wanted to point out that sometimes the parents are not being too precious to leave their older children, sometimes they just can't.

OP- I wouldn't exclude very young babies from a wedding.

Bunbaker · 30/04/2015 09:52

"I just wanted to point out that sometimes the parents are not being too precious to leave their older children, sometimes they just can't"

Yes, I pointed that out earlier. It is always those with childcare on tap who make those assumptions.

JassyRadlett · 30/04/2015 09:53

I think the problem with 'we want you to let your hair down and have a lovely child-free time!' is that it really grates for those for whom organising day+night childcare is a total nightmare even if the wedding is local. Not everyone has family nearby who can/will babysit and asking friends to have a toddler for 12 hours plus is a big ask.

I went to a no-kids wedding when DS was 9 months, luckily we were able to stay with a close friend and leave DS with her. He was a bit miserable, fine, but my only memory of the day was that I was in total fucking agony for hours as I was still breastfeeding and unsurprisingly hadn't put a breast pump in my evening clutch. I really regret going.

Since then we've gone to two child-free weddings - one when DS was 2, and we originally had a complicated 'one friend until teatime and another for the evening' arrangement until luckily my mum ended up visiting from abroad at that time. The second, DS was older and less clingy so I felt less bad about leaving him with friends.

For weddings that aren't local and don't invite kids, one or both of us don't go. DS + strange babysitter + hotel room is a recipe for disaster. That's fine, it's our problem not the hosts'. But it's not ok when they subsequently get arsey about it.

Swipe left for the next trending thread