Child-free wedding

[GingerbreadGingerbread]

Posting on behalf of my best friend as she doesn't have an account I hope that's OK.

My best friend is getting married in March and she and her fiancé want a child free wedding. They don't have children themselves and not loads of close family with young children. The wedding is in the city where they live but they have some family travelling from further afield (Manchester, wedding in South East.) After this decision was made the bride's cousin announced his wife is pregnant and due to give birth in December so baby will be very young at the time of the wedding.

The couple plus brides aunt (cousin's mother) are putting pressure on bride and groom to allow the couple to bring their young baby. Other family members are getting i olives saying cousin and wine won't be able to attend without the baby. My friend and her fiancé are very stressed about this as they want the cousin and his wife to be present but they have already told others it's a child free wedding and it's going to be quite a formal affair and they personally want it to be just adults.

Who is being unreasonable?

What will wind them up on the day more? Having the baby there that they don't want or having family members huffing because they didn't get their own way? And if family members are huffing and get their way on this thing will that open the door to other huffiness???

Why is the UK such an increasingly child intolerant place? So different in other cultures.

I come from a culture where in the 1980s/1990s, weddings were huge affairs (think 300-400 people) including children, the dinner service would be 10+ courses and go into the early hours. Children would run around in places they had discovered (albeit still well-behaved) away from most adults and everything was very big and loud.

In the last decade I've only been to one wedding where there were more than 300 guests and in our culture, people are spending more money on smaller details and that includes a smaller numbers.

I'm getting married in a venue that only allows 50 guests, I can understand why people wouldn't want to invite children for a number of reasons, including the cost of hosting and feeding them.

Luckily for us our venue is so old, under 12s are not allowed, so it kills two birds with one stone without us getting it in the neck

I don't understand the attitude that you must somehow treat the whole cohort of wedding guests like a Reception class, who need a single rule applied with absolute consistency lest anarchy and wails of 'it's not faaaaaair' ensue.

I've been to plenty of weddings which were generally child-free but with some exceptions: babes in arms; children of immediate family or bridal party; children of guests who were travelling from overseas. It's only a problem if the parents who do attend without children are lied to about the policy. Grown-ups are perfectly capable of understanding that some things need to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

But why should the B&G have to make decisions on an individual basis? If they say no children including babes in arms then it's no children. And it's pretty childish to assume that the rules don't apply to you because you are such a special snowflake that the wedding can't possibly go ahead without you and your children.

As for being less tolerant, my mother's first wedding was child free and that was nearly fifty years ago so it's not a new concept.

B&G are. And I say that as someone who also wanted a child-free wedding. However, mine was to exclude mobile children who were uncontrolled and ran around making as much noise as they liked (experience) - so I was quite happy to have non-mobile babies there. And did - 2 of them, in fact.

There is a massive difference, IMO, between mobile children who eat food and therefore qualify as a "bum on seat" both for the registry office (tight numbers) and the reception (cost), and a babe-in-arms. And it's unreasonable to separate new babies from their mothers, ESPECIALLY if they're EBF. But it's not great even if they're not.

I took a 4 month old to a friends wedding. She started grizzling just before the ceremony so had to take her out to feed her and then screamed because of reflux and projectile vomiting. By time she was settled and cleaned up I had missed it. Quite a gap between ceremony and sit down evening meal which was 7pm and coincided with her evening feed and usually bed time ( routine baby) fed her a bit earlier and hoped she would sleep in pushchair - no such luck! She got more and more grumpy and couldn't be settled ended up walking her round the hotel in an attempt to settle her. Eventually she fell asleep but my food was cold. I'm sure my friend would have enjoyed her day just as much even if we hadn't been there! For me it was a very expensive overnight hotel stay where I didn't see the wedding or eat the food! I couldn't even have a drink!

And it's unreasonable to separate new babies from their mothers,

No one is forcibly separating mothers from babies! If babies aren't invited the mother doesn't HAVE to go

A tiny newborn member who isn't going to remember it, will possibly scream throughout and probably won't miss out by not being around a load of pissed up people/loud music. Why would you invite a newborn?

Why would you invite a newborn?

You don't. You invite the parents and accept that they come as a package. If you're happy for the parents to miss the wedding then there's no issue.

How is it 'bridezilla' (eugh, horribly misogynistic term). It's the extended family putting pressure on the couple with a misplaced sense of entitlement. Some couples don't want children there, full stop, including newborns. It's not a crime.

Personally I think the b&g are being unreasonable, but that's because I will never get my head around child free weddings!

But it is their wedding so what they say goes, but they need to accept that it is unlikely the cousin will come, they need to decide what's more important.

And yet, the OP clearly stated both the bride and fiancé made the decision about having a childfree wedding. Yet the bride gets labelled as a 'bridezilla'. Funny how the sexist terms never seem to apply to men?

It's usual to have family children at a wedding. Putting that to 1 side I think the B&G need to decide if they want cousin at the wedding. If you want to go entirely child free then they won't be able to come as baby is way too young to be left alone. This is breast or bottle feeding the baby needs a parent at that age. I doubt a 2-3 month old baby will impact much or if at all on the wedding day. Personally I would say let that baby come or any under 1s

lltoonsandaptioeI don't think either party are being unreasonable. It's not unreasonable to have a child free wedding - but you have to accept graciously that you will lose some guests

^^ This. Everybody has a choice and as long as they each respect everyone else's, there's really no need for bad feeling and huffiness

At least that's how it should work ... but try making exceptions and all too often the "me too" starts up and it all goes to hell

B&G are unreasonable. Young babies can't usually be separated from mum (or dad, whoever is primary caregiver) without causing distress to baby and/or parent, whether breast or formula fed.

So either they should allow babes in arms or accept with good grace that the couple won't be able to come. And accept that their decision not to allow babes in arms is the reason, not because parents are being deliberately awkward.

Not sure how that's relevant. They're making the same decision as a couple regardless of who is gestating. If the groom's family member was pregnant in the same situation, you'd label him with an equally unpleasant term...?

If you specify a totally child-free wedding (no babes in arms), you have to accept that what you are actually saying is that it is a 'child-and-new-mother-free wedding'.

Allowing one family member to bring a newborn does not mean that they have to allow kids or babies generally there. They need to stop worrying about other guests reactions. It's fine to have one rule for family and another for friends. And one little baby is easily taken out during the service or speeches

I don't think that the B&G are unreasonable, nobody is forcing the guests to come.

I hate the term bridezilla!l

I didn't want children at my wedding. But there is a difference between a young baby and say a child running around or sitting loudly complaining of being bored!