Awkward one...

[Pippa12]

We have a family wedding in the near future. One child (5) is invited and the younger child (6 months) isn't? Bride has not said as such, just younger child's name not on invite? Assumed it had been a typing error (almost RSVPd yesterday with all our names on- would've been awkward!) but it's transpired that younger children aren't invited. Is this abit odd or am I being over sensitive. I'm not against child free weddings at all, in fact me and DH are generally chuffed about then . But to invite one child and not the other bearing in mind they're family? Is that normal? The plan was to take both and have them both picked up at 8'ish anyway but will feel bad asking babysitter to have youngest all day AND THEN come and collect eldest!

Maybe no babies under 1 or something similar?

Coild you leave both dc with babysitter, and enjoy the day with your Dh.

Just because both are invited doesn't mean both have to go.

If you are usually happy to go to a child free wedding I don't see the issue.

I think thats out oif order - if no children fair enough but not inviting 1 but not the other.

I think that is really odd?!? why not invite both your DCs?

I suspect both would be happier not going.

Agree, invite the whole family not one child and not the baby!

Weird decision, but yeah could have been a no babies rule? Anyway, why don't you leave both with a sitter?

Also sort of odd as non-walking 6 month olds that go to sleep in buggy much less disruptive than five year olds careering about!

My DD is a flower girl so has to go. It is a immediate family member so we do really both need and honestly want to go. I am just suprised and wondered if others have come accross this!

Pretend you didn't know and turn up with them both

I personally think it's a bit unfair, either do all children/babies or none. A baby won't take up a seat or dinner place either.

I don't think the 6 month old will be offended.

I guess they just don't want baby cries in the background which I don't agree with but wouldn't hold it against them.

That's weird. Normally babes in arms are allowed even at strictly child free weddings. But everyone has the right to have their wedding as they want (and guests have the right to then accept the conditions or not). Normally I'd say you just politely decline. But given your DD is a flower girl and it's a relative I would just point out that you aren't going to both be able to come if the baby can't. Do this yourself, or through intermediaries if you think that is more appropriate (eg your mum having a word with her sister who's mother of the bride etc)

Have they got a new children rule. But specified it so she can be a flower girl.

Rather than excluding the baby, they are including the five year old.

I would surprised if the baby is offended.

If it's an 'immediate family member', why on earth don't you just ask them about it?

Also your DD doesnt have to go. If this rule makes it tricky for your family you can decline her role given her sibling hasn't been invited. May or may not cause a shit storm, but it is indeed an option.

no children rule, not new

Hard to leave a 6 month old, I know that we couldn't have. So it would be kind of all or nothing for is in this instance.

I had this, I was told over whelming on here that I was BU to consider it rude. Not a child free wedding - just one child left off the invite. This was confirmed as not an error when they were not on the seating plan either. He was 13 at the time and did not want to go anyway but I did and still do consider it bad form.

IMO the bride and groom are hosts and should treat their guests with hospitality.

I think curren must be right. Surely? It doesn't make sense for them to do anything else.

It is a bit strange to invite one child and not the other, and especially to exclude a young baby which it may be harder to leave. The weddings I've been to that are child-free tend to still have young babies there, not the other way round.

Your 5 year old doesn't have to go, if it's going to be inconvenient with the babysitter looking after then baby and then coming to fetch your DD, then I'd pull out of her being a flower girl.

Iwould assume either they have decided that babies cry and distrupt weddings, but have got it in their heads that any child over 1 will be able and prepared to sit nicely through the wedding, meal, photos and speeches, or they have only invited your DD because she's a flower girl and all other DCs not invited.

I would pull DD out of being a flowergirl - cite the fact that you need to use a babysitter for the evening anyway and assumed they would come get both DCs together, they can't be expected to drive with DC2 to pick up DC1, so DC1 will have to be there all day. Have a child-free day.

It has the feel of asking your DD to be a flower girl as a prop, not because they want her there.

It's odd. You can take your baby where you like. They wouldn't be providing a meal or having to make any sort of arrangements for your baby, so why would he/she need to be invited or uninvited?

Strange to invite one but not the other but I think everyone has the right to what they want at their own wedding. Personally, if I was able to get a sitter I would still go. I went to a wedding recently where a baby screamed all the way through the wedding vows perhaps they are trying to avoid this scenario.

Sounds like they're having a child free wedding but with the exception of DD flower girl. Bit off not to invite her DB though.