Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

Wedding and childcare

150 replies

Freeble · 13/08/2015 23:28

Sorry I want to put this as objectively as I can as can't see wood for the trees and need impartial honestly.

Couple have been invited to wedding of old mutual friend. One of the couple has been asked to have a part in the ceremony which will involve them being present on the stage of the ceremony for about 2 hours. Its a child friendly / alternative event and it has been made clear by those marrying that should this person need to hold their baby while up there it is not a problem.

The other member of the couple (who are not getting married!) has suggested the person does not take on this honoured role as they will be unable to help with their other child, who is 6, and will not be able to do very much with the baby as probably won't be able to hold them up there for the whole thing. The other member of this couple is upset that the person taking on this role, which of course is an honour, has not thought to refuse on these grounds.

Views appreciated!

OP posts:

TidyDancer · 16/08/2015 12:21

Non stage person is pathetic. This can't be compared to normal childcare situations, so that aspect is largely a red herring. This is a wedding and the stage person is honoured to take part. A supportive loving partner should not be acting like a tool over this.

Original poster

Freeble · 16/08/2015 12:36

Really thanks for all responses.

Non stage parent said they didn't see why they 'had' to go as it would be so difficult and continued to object to notion of not being consulted (or permission granted, depending on your view) on stage person agreeing to it.

Stage parent contacted mutual friends, apologising profusely for plan changes - not last minute, wedding next year- and said they would be going alone.

Non stage parent threw toys out of pram, saying they had been really looking forward to it. Unfortunately too late now as places been offered to others.

Stage parent looking forward to day of joy immensely!!

Thanks all

OP posts:

Mrsjayy · 16/08/2015 12:39

So 1 person has to hold a baby for 2 hours in some sort of performance wedding and the other parent is moaning they need to look after children I dont know whats more ridiculous holding a baby up like lion king or a parent whinging they need to look after their own children

Original poster

Freeble · 16/08/2015 12:41

Errr rtf?! But goodwill to one and all

OP posts:

Bogeyface · 16/08/2015 12:46

So he said he would stay at home if he didnt get his own way, you said "ok then" and told the B&G, and now he has thrown a hissy fit because you took him at his word and he can't go because his place has been offfered to someone else? And, if I am reading this right, instead of 2 hours fairly easy childcare with lots to do and see and people to talk to, he now has all day with them at home on his own?

Nice! Maybe that will teach him to stop being a fucking idiot in future.

bigbumtheory · 16/08/2015 12:46

Serves non stage person right, perhaps next time they refrain from tantrums and manipulations and you know, communicate.

Have an awesome time OP.

MagickPants · 16/08/2015 12:47

Well played Freeble! I hope you have a fabulous day

UrethraFranklin1 · 16/08/2015 12:49

I'd put money on OP being the stage person, and the mother of the children. Non-stage person is the father, who is clearly being a dick.

Mrsjayy · 16/08/2015 12:50

I did read the full thread its so dramatic why cant a parent look after their children for 2 hours are they usuallyso feeble and yes I know im being rude but its just daft and over dramatic. Btw you can co parent and be away for 2 hours

Groovee · 16/08/2015 12:52

You get a bag and fill it with new fun things for both children and produce as soon as restlessness starts! I used to go to everything alone with both children as dh was working. You just sometimes have to get on without!

NurseRoscoe · 16/08/2015 12:56

Non stage person is being ridiculous. It's 2 hours, not the whole wedding. I look after my own children for 4 days & nights a week whilst my partner works away. Single parents do it day in day out. The baby shouldn't even need to be on the stage unless it's the mum up there & she is breastfeeding.

Unless they have some sort of disability/reason why they need constant help with their kids, they should get a grip.

NewLife4Me · 16/08/2015 12:58

Non stage person is a spoilt brat and has got just desserts.
Something wrong with a parent who can't manage their own kids for 2 hours of course sn aside.

scarlets · 16/08/2015 13:00

If you think that the children will be bored/fretful, leave them with a babysitter.

DoreenLethal · 16/08/2015 13:03

Oh no - non stage person now has to mind the kids for much longer. Doh!

Mamiof3 · 16/08/2015 13:09

I would take the opinion that there will be mutual friends there and it is literally one day can't mum look after both kids (with a bit of help from said mutual friends) for just a few hours why is she incapable of holding a baby on her knee and keeping an eye on a six year old? In return the following weekend the parent taking part in the wedding can have the kids whilst mum (I'm assuming mum will be the one with the kids) goes on a night out

Or is the partner normally quite 'you must help me we must be equally shackled by kids at all times'

ADishBestEatenCold · 16/08/2015 18:04

Sounds like you've got it all sorted.

However, I don't think it was up to 'Stage' parent to contact the 'Wedding Couple' and decline the 'Non-Stage' parent's invitation on his/her behalf. That was up to him/her to do. All the 'Stage' parent could do was make it clear that he/she intended to go, he/she intended to take part in the special way 'Wedding Couple' had reqested and, therefore, 'Non-Stage' parent should contact the 'Wedding Couple' to let them know in good time, if he/she was declining invitation. I think 'Stage' parent was out of order there.

Or can i suggest that my post be a lot easier to understand (but still correct, yes?) if i just said ....

(While I understand the circumstances) I don't think you had any right to contact your mutual friends and decline your OH's invitation. Not okay.

m0therofdragons · 16/08/2015 18:14

Dh is best man for his brother and will sit on top table while I entertain our 7 yo dd and 4 yo dtds. I regularly care for them alone while dh is at work or doing his hobby and have done from when they were tiny. (Dh has also cared for dc while i work so it goes both ways). Why can't the oh care for dc while other is on the stage? Baffling. 6 yos are pretty self sufficient really and a baby can be handed round or held on the stage. I can't see the issue.

RapidlyOscillating · 16/08/2015 18:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Fizrim · 16/08/2015 18:40

Wow - I do think it was a bit rude of you to say the non-stage parent would not go. Up to them to decline the invitation. Does not sound good if you can't talk something through, I do think it will be a lot easier to look after the children at home tbh.

How old will the baby be next year?

binkiesandpopcorns · 16/08/2015 19:13

When DS was 6 he would not for all the bribes in the world have sat still for 2 hours and watched a wedding ceremony. I would have dreaded trying to keep him quiet for that amount of time. I would balk at watching a wedding ceremony myself for that length of time

LintRoller · 16/08/2015 19:17

Is it an Indian wedding? A traditional Indian wedding usually lasts about that long and takes place on a stage. There is no requirement for guests to be quiet though - 90% are gossiping loudly, slurping drinks, munching free goodies and generally having a great time, so it's not nearly as rough as it sounds.

Sorry if I'm way off.

LintRoller · 16/08/2015 19:20

Anyway the point of my question was that would put a different aspect on things - if it's a wedding like that, it would be quite easy for one person to manage two young children as they could wander around, play, and there would be lots of friendly people on hand to help.

If I'm wrong and it is actually a 2-hour silent stage mime performance or something, that's different. So we need to know a bit more really.

binkiesandpopcorns · 16/08/2015 19:21

the traditional Indian wedding sounds a lot more fun than the traditional British one

Bing0wings · 16/08/2015 19:30

OP, I've been to lots of stage weddings. When both of my kids where babies I personally would not have wanted to be a stage person. I also think DH would be peed off if I didn't discuss it with him or vice versa (if he was the stage person). I certainly wouldn't have been happy with looking after them for two hours but they have very small age gap and medical problems which make them slightly harder work. Intact a few years ago i went to relatives wedding and left DC2 with DH (we discussed and agreed) cos taking DC2 would have been too much hassle and not enjoyable. DH was very much involved in the decision though. I do feel stage person could have had a chat with non stage person before deciding what to do. Not to 'seek permission' but to discuss it as a couple. Regarding the non stage person feeling put out about not having a role and being less important, I think they need to grow up a bit and suck it up.

Rainbunny · 17/08/2015 23:55

Apart from the boredom of a two hour wedding ceremony, is it really impossible for one partner to take care of a baby and a child for a couple of hours? Although if I was the non-participating partner I would use this as an excuse to skip the ceremony all together, which isn't helpful I suppose if the non-participating partner actually wants to see it.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6