Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To want to be able to take my children to my friends wedding

252 replies

sleepsforwimps · 02/04/2009 10:49

She politely told me that only children from her family are allowed at her wedding. The reason I'm given is she doesn't want the risk of anything spoiling her day..

This wouldn't be such a big deal if my ds was older, but he will be not much over a year by the time of the wedding. I am breastfeeding and I am now feel pressured into getting him drinking milk from a cup well enough that I can leave him with my parents by the time of the wedding. He has also never spent any time away from me and I don't like this pressure of having to leave him somewhere and getting him off the breast quicker than I maybe would have.

AIBU I want to take him with me, he's a very good baby, she wouldn't even know he was there.

OP posts:
SalBySea · 02/04/2009 13:12

YABU

I am invited to a wedding when my baby will be 3 months old

the invite wasnt clear as to whether the baby was invited or not

My plan was either to go with baby and husband if children were invited, or book into a nearby hotel with husband and baby, leave baby and husband and go to the service and meal, express if poss, if the baby wont take bottles then I'd go meet husband at feed time and go to as much of the day as I could.

Turns out though that the baby is invited but wasnt named cause it isnt named yet

I had a 3rd option available to me had the baby not been invited - decline!

IMO forcing the issue on someone who has been clear that they dont want children there by continuing to ask if it can come (even if kept outside the church) is rude and not an option - you dont HAVE to go!

The baby is not invited. Do you WANT to go without it or not? its quite simple

Sorrento · 02/04/2009 13:13

For the rather short time that your baby is a baby for 2 tiny years then they should be your sole focus and accompany you everywhere or else not at all.
Mother in the Uk suffer from the highest rates of postnatal depression because they bring it all on themselves instead of chillin with their babies they rush around like blue arsed flies trying to be everything to everybody.
Adult interaction tends to be rather over rated in my experience far more fun playing with your children, ask the Dads.

chequersmate · 02/04/2009 13:14

No, I agree Shambolic, but it wouldn't have to be a permanent cutting down on feeds would it? Just confused by the OP saying it would mean she had to get her DS off the breast earlier than she planned. I took that to mean she'd have to give up b/feeding, but maybe that's not what she meant.

She seems to have disappeared now anyway

SalBySea · 02/04/2009 13:14

"I don't think the OP should be forced to cut down on feeds if her and DC don't want to."

who's forcing her? she has a choice - stay at home with the child or go without

paranoidmother · 02/04/2009 13:15

Why don't you say to friend that you are declining because you're not sure whether you'll be able to leave baby at home and see what she says.

It might be that someone else is paying for it not them and they (B&G) will want to double check it is ok. Perhaps one or the children they would have had to invite is the child from hell and they are stopping all children because then they don'thave to have that one their. Perhaps they will make an allowance for you. If I hadn't had a 8 month old baby I would have ended up saying no to kids because we ended up with the child from hell coming with one of the relatives.

Worst case scenerio is that they say no, but at least you've explained and not asked and you are still all friends.

chequersmate · 02/04/2009 13:16

Oh I'm going now before this thing kicks off.

Well done Sorrento, so I think you've managed to offend any working mother with children under the age of two, anyone who has had a night out before their child is two and anyone who suffered from PND because they clearly bring it on themselves.

I hope for your sake that you're a troll.

Byeeee.

Shambolic · 02/04/2009 13:16

Must admit I haven't read the whole lot as there have been so many of these recently...

Still like to add my bit

Honestly I just don't go if it doesn't fit, no need to get worked up about anything.

iggypiggy · 02/04/2009 13:19

Sorrento that is your opinion - to which you are of course entitled - but don't see the advantage/relevance of saying that this a problem of 'UK mothers' 'bringing it all on themselves' - that is a sweeping generalisation and you are stereotyping a certain cultural/ ethnic group (ie. People from the UK) - which to me isn't actually acceptable.

Sorrento · 02/04/2009 13:21

Well as a nipple discussing offended poster who is not a troll, I fight fire with fire.

chequersmate · 02/04/2009 13:22

I'm pretty sure the OP is a troll actually, the thread title says children then she talks only about her child.

Boring old topic anyway, should have thought of someething more imaginative.

SazzlesA · 02/04/2009 13:23

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Ewe · 02/04/2009 13:24

I think one is a hideous age to take a child to a wedding even if you were allowed. My DD is just one and has just learnt to run and really found her voice. There is no way I would want her at a wedding, she is loud and causes chaos wherever she goes!

Now I know not everyones one year old is like this but most of the ones I know are. It's pretty simple though, you either go and leave your child which IMO is quite healthy or you decline and miss your friends wedding which is also fine.

I really don't understand why these threads always cause such a fuss.

newgirl · 02/04/2009 13:28

sorento - saying everyone in a whole country thinks the same thing is a racist point of view and very offensive.

this thread has a range of views which is great and i am sure the op will find lots of thoughts to help her see all sides of the argument

5Foot5 · 02/04/2009 13:29

IslandofSodor said
"Sorrento, whilst what you say is tru of the actual ceremony and I personally would have no problem taking anunivited child to a church ceremony what you are suggesting for the reception is incredibly rude."

Actually I think it is potentially unwise at the ceremony too.

At my BILs wedding a few years ago one of their friends who wasn't invited came to watch the church ceremony bringing their baby with them. The baby cried and grisled throughout. They hadn't the manners to take it out. When they got wedding video it turned out that much of the ceremony was inaudible because the baby's crying was so loud on the soundtrack.

Shambolic · 02/04/2009 13:33

Although anyone can go to a church ceremony, in practice it is not in the spirit of the thing to take a child to the wedding ceremony when children have specifically been excluded.

It would put the couple's noses right out of joint.

SalBySea · 02/04/2009 13:35

I dont know why you would WANT to take an uninvited child to a wedding anyway?

They dont want it there so why would you wanna bring it with that knowledge?

Some people say "all welcome at church" at the bottom on their invites. This indicated that the guest list was restricted due to venue space or cost and that univited children or partners are welcome to the "free" bits. Otherwise, there's a good chance that they just dont want children making noise during the ceremony or running under their feet at the reception.

I wouldnt want my child to be anywhere where it wasnt welcome/wanted

Shambolic · 02/04/2009 13:39

I think it is more with younger BF children, so that the parent can go sal.

SalBySea · 02/04/2009 13:42

TBH I was very miffed to learn that a friend brought her uninvited on-off-boyfriend to the church and evening do of my wedding

He was not her partner. I met him once ever and that time he hit on me. She knew how I feel about him and she knew he wasn't invited (she was invited to the whole day)

Now I know that actual wedding part legally have to be open to the public, and I didn't mind that some of the old dears from the community popped in and sat at the back, but I was well pissed off that someone I had purposely not invited was brought along. Bringing an uninvited baby to the church is just as unreasonable, if not more.

Housemum · 02/04/2009 13:43

Sorrento - I know it doesn't seem like it now (not sure how far away wedding is) but at over a year milk is not such a big deal - when DD3 11 mths she only BF morning and night. Water at lunchtime. If it is the evening BF that is a concern, assuming that wedding is day, then evening reception/party, could you either not go to party, or ask friends if whoever looking after DS could bring him to you later? Would not be interrupting the "important" part of the day then ie the ceremony and the speeches.

I left DD3 for the day with grandparents when she was around 9 mths as I had to go out with DD2 and couldn't take a baby - she and I survived, I wasn't engorged and she wasn't unhappy. Babies are more flexible than you may think.

PeachyLikesHerChoccyRabbit · 02/04/2009 13:43

Hmmmm

I'm not a fan of childfree wedidngs but if thats what the bride wants then just turning up with your child isn't an option IMO so you have two choices-

Say no thanks (I would, having a BF one year old myself)

Or feel sad /annoyed but go anyway without children

FWIW with the only child free wedding I was ever invited to the Bride changed her mind when she found out I was BF but I didnt go anyway; I no more wanted to be thought of as the awkward cow than leave a 3 month old ds2 overnight (wedding farish away). We did give a polite other reason though (DH denied time off- wish we hadnt bothered, 7 years on and still not a thank you for the wedidng gift)

So ultimately0 her wedding, her choice, but your child your choice and if she was offended at you declining gracefully for child related reasons then she would be in the wrong. if you have a child free wedding you have to relaise its not practical for everyone to attend (And if she is short of cash to the do she'll have a waiting list anyhow)

PeachyLikesHerChoccyRabbit · 02/04/2009 13:44

Housemum that does vary- ds4 is a year next week and still BF 5 times a day as won't take any other fluids.

SalBySea · 02/04/2009 13:44

shambolic - the parents dont HAVE to go if they dont want to go without the babies

I just dont understand why one would force the issue if you know that the couple dont want your baby there?

Shambolic · 02/04/2009 13:47

Yes sal. Which is why I decline invitations when BF.

You asked why people would even think about it. I think that is the reason.

amyboo · 02/04/2009 13:48

YABu definitely. I politely told all friends that there were to be no children at my wedding. I've been to far too many where a "well behaved" small one cried out mid vows....

sandpebbles · 02/04/2009 13:48

sleepsforwimps: big YABU to you.
I had my wedding ceremony ruined by two toddlers, they kicked off behind me during the vows and I was battling to hear myself think. (their mother, my SIL, didn't take them outside even though all guests in the vicinity were looking at her with big eyes...!).
As others have been saying it's up to you not to accept the invitation if you feel strongly, but by one year old your child will be a little more independent and you may well relish the opportunity for an afternoon not on mummy duties!
Perhaps there are other reasons for the bride's feelings, other than the risk of noise though. Perhaps the bride wants the focus of attention on her at all times, small babies dressed up do create quite a stir! It wouldn't be my view but if it's one of your friends reasons she is entitled to feel that way and not feel bad about it i think.