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

Original poster

Or is DP? (Wedding related, sorry!)

100 replies

HoneyBadgers · 04/07/2016 20:25

Both DP and I have fairly large families, with quite a lot of young children. Because of this, we decided that other than immediate family, no children were invited to the wedding. So far this has been fine and people have understood, but we've now disagreed on this issue.

I have a friend, who I've known for about five years and we're close. She's expecting a little one about a month before the wedding. She plans to exclusively breast feed, and has said she's happy to take the baby to her room to calm if they get upset during the day. I don't think this is a problem, and think allowing an exclusively breastfeeding newborn is very different to allowing children to the wedding.

DP thinks it means we can't say no if other friends offer to bring their children (all 2+). Mumsnet jury, please tell me who's in the wrong here!

OP posts:

puglife15 · 05/07/2016 09:14

tappity I left my son with nursery/childminder for work but neither of those options were available at the weekend, when weddings typically are... My DC1 was 3.3 before anyone else put him to bed, and that was only because I was giving birth to DC2

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 05/07/2016 09:15

Your DP is being unreasonable.
MASSIVE difference between breastfed babies, and small children.
I had a child-free wedding, and we had 2 babes in arms at the wedding, because:
• it's quite unkind to separate breastfeeding babies from their mums (and vice versa!) when they're that little
• they don't take up any space in terms of a seat in the registry office, or at the wedding breakfast
• they can't run around and disrupt proceedings, or cause potential hazards for waiting staff (unlike some 2yos!)
• USUALLY their parent(s) take them out if they start to squawk during the ceremony.

One guest had a bit of a shitfit that I'd allowed the 2 babies there, when their own children weren't allowed - but their children were horrendously-behaved, and actually they were the main reason we had a no-children rule in the first place! Both babies were perfectly well-behaved and no trouble at all.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 05/07/2016 09:16

BTW, I should have clarified that, when they're that tiny, it's unkind to expect ANY mother to be separated from her baby, not just breastfeeding. Sorry.

TreadSoftlyOnMyDreams · 05/07/2016 09:17

We had a child free wedding - venue was totally unsuitable in a city location and numbers constraints, but had a babe in arms of 4 weeks old. In hindsight I am in awe of the mum for making my wedding. It was lovely to have a baby there and we had made it very clear that if they needed to cancel that was not going to cause issues.

Two things to consider - even if you say "absolutely you and the baby are very welcome", they may well need to pull out on short notice. So you need to not be a bridezilla/groomzilla about it. They will also likely leave soon after the meal. Their lives will be very different and they will be existing on very little sleep.

No rational parent is going to have a strop about a tiny baby versus their hulking toddler who will need a highchair and a special menu. It gets tricker for the 6-12 month old who is still bf/ff and also weaning. They can't always be easily left with someone but are closer to a toddler age. It sounds like you are off the hook on that particular one so I'd welcome the baby and say nothing.

moomin11 · 05/07/2016 09:47

Agree it needs to be clear but we couldn't put that on the invite MaidOfStars as family children will be there! Think I'll speak to people before the invites go out and well before to give time to arrange babysitters etc. It's DP who wants family children only there, I was happy to invite all and let the parents decide but I understand his reasons. It's tricky.

CatoftheMilkyWay · 05/07/2016 12:42

I would definitely allow tiny babies. I am due at the end of this month with my first and we are being invited to a wedding with strict no kids including babies policy on 1 October - so baby will be 2 months. I will have to decline while hubby goes, all feels a bit unfair.

2nds · 05/07/2016 12:55

Tappity I have two kids, one is so placid I could leave her with anyone and the other one is a full on terror at times. We don't have family here and even so our parents are either ill or too old to be looking after one child never mind two and I'd imagine that there are a lot of people in the same position as I am. So its not always a case of 'not wanting' to leave the kids. So enough of the judging.

2nds · 05/07/2016 13:04

Purpledaisies I'm not looking to be offended at all about the 'Especially breast fed babies' but it is offensive. There's no difference whatsoever between a breastfed baby and a FF baby, they both need fed and they both need that bonding time at 4 weeks. That especially breastfed babies shouldn't even be said, there's no difference they all need their mum. People should stop making differences in them.

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 13:10

That especially breastfed babies shouldn't even be said, there's no difference they all need their mum.

No one else can feed an exclusively breast fed baby who won't take a bottle. That biological fact means that breast fed babies more greatly need to be in close proximity to their mothers than formula fed babies.

You're setting up a straw man argument. Absolutely no one is saying breast fed babies should be allowed to attend a wedding but not formula fed babies.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 05/07/2016 13:25

There is a difference for the mums as well though - if you're breastfeeding, especially in the first few months, going for hours without feeding (or expressing) can cause you an awful lot of pain from engorged boobs!
Aside of the emotional bonds, which I wouldn't have wanted to interfere with at that age, I wouldn't have put my friends through that level of discomfort or inconvenience.

TreadSoftlyOnMyDreams · 05/07/2016 13:43

I would stick a post it note in with an invite to simply say that unfortunately due to constraints on numbers we are only able to accommodate children from immediate family. Thereby making it very clear to your 3rd cousins once removed that they are NOT in fact immediate family.

tappitytaptap · 05/07/2016 14:14

Not judging 2nds, merely wondering how people manage to cope with everyday life given the vast majority of women go back to work! There are quite a few threads on here where people seem to suggest that spending a few hours apart from their child is utterly impossible, I am just always curious about it. Obviously I understand the no babysitters point.

SamWheat · 05/07/2016 15:02

Child free wedding means just that. CHILD FREE. Don't like it, don't go. Simple.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 05/07/2016 15:10

You do understand that it's the OP's wedding, yes? Bit tricky if she doesn't go...

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 15:11

Child free wedding means just that. CHILD FREE. Don't like it, don't go. Simple.
Er, what is this comment supposed to be in response to?

Dexterjamesmummy · 05/07/2016 15:31

I'm going to a child free wedding in 3 weeks time but they've kindly made an exception for me (cousins wedding) as they knew I wouldn't leave my 15 month daughter. I don't leave her at all as her older brother died in his sleep 2 years ago. I'll also be taking a newborn who wasn't on the cards when I was invited last year!

SamWheat · 05/07/2016 15:36

Are people being deliberately obtuse?! It's in relation to the OP and her asking who is BU, her or the DH as he thinks they should be allowed to go.
I have a friend, who I've known for about five years and we're close. She's expecting a little one about a month before the wedding.
I said child free weddings are just that, CHILD FREE. If people don't like it, they don't have to go.

ThumbWitchesAbroad · 05/07/2016 15:41

No, we're not being deliberately obtuse - you are answering the wrong question. The OP wants her friend to come. Her DP wants her to open up the wedding to other children if the new baby comes too. No one is asking whether or not the friend should come, ffs!

SamWheat · 05/07/2016 15:47

Her DP wants her to open up the wedding to other children if the new baby comes too. No one is asking whether or not the friend should come, ffs!

Well then, her DH is in the right then. It's not a child free wedding if you're letting a baby come, is it? So yes, you open it up to other children as well as it's now not a child free wedding if a baby comes as well.
It's either child free or it's not.

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 15:56

So yes, you open it up to other children as well as it's now not a child free wedding if a baby comes as well.

I think it would be fair to say this is a minority view. The vast majority of people think newborns or very small babies are exempt, a bit like shops are no dogs except guide dogs.

Who says there had to be a blanket rule anyway? Plenty of people invite children of family but not friends. The bride and groom are free to invite whoever they choose.

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 15:57

Just to clarify I'm not saying babies and dogs are the same-just that some rules have exceptions made for special circumstances.

SamWheat · 05/07/2016 16:05

The vast majority of people think newborns or very small babies are exempt,

No, people can and do have different opinions, maybe in a minority on this thread but that's not to say it's a minority opinion everywhere.

just that some rules have exceptions made for special circumstances

Where does that way of thinking end, then?
"My toddler needs to come, he has separation anxiety."

As one example. You'd have everyone citing special circumstances. I'm agreeing with the DH, you're making it a child wedding by inviting babies.

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 16:08

Where does that way of thinking end, then?

It ends wherever the bride and groom choose to end it. It is their decision.

For what it's worth I know someone who (rightly in my opinion) allowed their friends to bring their severely disabled son to their otherwise child free wedding because they couldn't find a suitable babysitter. Every child free wedding I've been to has had at least one tiny baby there.

SamWheat · 05/07/2016 16:18

It ends wherever the bride and groom choose to end it. It is their decision.

Well, of course it does. Ultimately it's their decision. Although the OP asked who was BU so I answered. She is, if some children can't be invited but others can.

Every child free wedding I've been to has had at least one tiny baby there.
On what planet is that a child free wedding then?! Sorry, but ?! A BABY IS A CHILD!!! Sorry for the shouting but honestly, what the hell is a baby if not a child?!

PurpleDaisies · 05/07/2016 16:41

sam I think you're being deliberately obtuse and looking for an argument. Resorting to caps lock to make a point is not necessary.

We invited children at our own wedding. I think it is pretty clear to everyone except you that babies at "child free" weddings do not fall into the same category as other children when the invites are drawn up by the bride and groom. Just as in my analogy earlier guide dogs are still dogs when they are allowed into shops-the shop has just decided to make an exception for them.

Flip

1 2 3 4