AIBU to take exception to being offered 'a night off' at a wedding?

[SomethingStupidSomethingGreat]

DH and I have been awaiting a formal invite (after the 'save the date' had been sent) for a wedding in 3 months time. We were expecting it to be a child free wedding, which is fine... and to be honest, who 'really' wants to take young children to a wedding?
However, the invite arrived and states
'We love your kids but thought you would like a night off, so adults only please'
... we won't be going as dc2 is bf and an avid bottle refuser so I can't leave her. I don't mind, they are not close family and I have massive wedding fatigue after so many last year... but something has really irked me about the phrasing of the invite. I almost (I won't because I'm only a dick in my head and in anonymous forums) feel like saying...
'Thank you for thinking for us, yes we'd love a night off but unfortunately our dc will starve if she doesn't have almost constant access to my breasts.' (The wedding is 5 hours away).
Full disclosure, I do realise that none of this is the couples fault.
I'm not sure what phrasing would have been better and not irked me? I guess it just grated a bit that actually some people don't have the choice of a night off from their kids no matter how much you love them 😬

It all sounds a bit like "the lady doth protest too much" to me.

You've already said you don't want to go, no need to feel guilty about it. Sounds like they're not close friends anyway!

It's actually a bit odd for you to be going on about their wording when you've no intention of going. It sounds like you've got an axe to grind over the fact that you don't have the choice anymore even if you did want to go (as DC not included). The wording is a bit naff but there's no easy way to say no kids without seeming impolite.

@churchthecat perfect x

@Harebel 😂 thank you

Well other people wouldn't really know all the details of your breastfed baby would they. Lots of babies are able to take a bottle if away from mum, or might only be having a bedtime feed or whatever you are being oversensitive and others in your situation might be able to have a "night off".

It's just a nice way of saying no kids please.

As far as child free weddings go if you don't want my children you don't want me. Nothing nasty about that it's just the way I feel

hahaha, you're not going to be marrying them, it's just a glorified party fucking hell, people are precious

@Worriedmum32 Again. Don't expect them to know or care how I feed my baby.

I know their intention wouldn't have been to offend.

You're welcome, great response - QED

Churchthecat you have identified the 2 poles of opinion spot on!

The first will not mind how the invitation is worded because they won't come without their children.

The second, would be irritated by the "we thought you'd like a night off ..." approach.

So, straightforwatd wording will not increase the possibility of upsetting anyone, whereas using the "night off" wording does increase that possibility.

B & G risk nothing by being straightforward and ditching the crap

I've just also seen this on a previous thread (am bingereading previous wedding threads as part of my wedding planning):

"weddings= family
kids = family
only in englands middle classes (aspiring) would the idea of not bringing ones children to a wedding even be mooted.
this country is ridiculous"

Haha! Sorry, I have to keep sharing these. Someone else has written:

"A wedding celebration without children goes against the whole spirit of marriage where the service concentrates in no small part on procreation."

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/1170047-Have-you-ever-taken-a-child-to-a-child-free-wedding?msgid=24339182

Haha! Sorry, I have to keep sharing these. Someone else has written:

"A wedding celebration without children goes against the whole spirit of marriage where the service concentrates in no small part on procreation."

Aren't people who don't want/can't have children allowed to get married then haha

illustrate my point perfectly

Which point? I certainly wouldn't bring children if they weren't invited, or make the slightest fuss about it, "show them off" or allow them to behave badly.

I also, privately, don't find it polite to claim you wanted children at an event, but clearly didn't or you'd have made different arrangements. It isn't "unfortunate" that you've chosen the venue you wanted. It's the pretence which is irritating.

Just use plain English, FGS. Then everyone knows where they stand

That term 'own it' clearly implies that even if they just said it's adults only, this would not be perceived as a neutral decision, they'd still be knobs but at least they'd 'owned it'.

It really doesn’t. It’s an area where people need to be clear, because there are two acceptable options. ‘Owning it’ is making clear their decision, which is their decision, based on their own preferences and choices. Not ‘hey! We would totally have invited children but wanted to do you a favour instead and not invite them! We’re doing it for you!’

I always read the ‘unfortunately’ in the same way as I do on the door of a cafe reading ‘unfortunately we do not allow food from outside to be consumed on the premises.’ It is clearly ‘unfortunately [for you]...’

I always read the ‘unfortunately’ in the same way as I do on the door of a cafe reading ‘unfortunately we do not allow food from outside to be consumed on the premises.’ It is clearly ‘unfortunately [for you]...’

Exactly JassyRadlett

So...I'm fine saying "Due to tight number restrictions we are not able to invite children to the ceremony, though children are welcome at the party afterwards". ?

I don't want to piss people off but we just can't fit all of the kids, most of whom I see about once a year.

There’s something about this that irritates me too.

No, you’re not doing me a favour, you just don’t want brats at your wedding. Don’t give me permission to “have a night off” and also don’t assume I’m desperate to dump them on someone else and have a night without them, just say it’s an adult only wedding.

I know someone else (who doesn’t have kids) who when telling me about their child free wedding said “people can just get a baby sitter for the night”. Weddings are expensive enough with travel, sometimes overnight stay, wedding present, suitable outfit and then paying at the bar. What’s another £40+ for a babysitter hey? And that’s if you have anyone near by that can/you would want to babysit for you. Sounds so simple to someone who doesn’t actually have to organise it.

So...I'm fine saying "Due to tight number restrictions we are not able to invite children to the ceremony, though children are welcome at the party afterwards". ?

I’d be fine with it, but obviously can’t speak for anyone else. You’re being polite, honest and straightforward.

@churchthecat I think that sounds perfect.

Churchthecat, are there any small babies in your family? If so, maybe you could make an exception for babes in arms as they won’t need a seat.

Churchthecat, are there any small babies in your family? If so, maybe you could make an exception for babes in arms as they won’t need a seat.
Except then you have people giving out that babies are allowed but kids aren't. People can't win!

Your baby wouldn't starve though?????
5 hours each day plus a wedding?
Are you serious? Starved and dehydrated.

There are no babies in the family and unlikely to be next year.

Except then you have people giving out that babies are allowed but kids aren't. People can't win!

I was more thinking that a lot of people seem to think that no children doesn't include little babies, so it might be worth clarifying, if there are any little babies about.

Looks like churchthcat has managed to dodge that particular minefield though.

So...I'm fine saying "Due to tight number restrictions we are not able to invite children to the ceremony, though children are welcome at the party afterwards". ?

Wording fine from a naffness test but are you OK for children to be at the meal? Might need to clarify a bit more.