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

Original poster

To think this all smacks of emotional blackmail

25 replies

makedoandmend · 07/07/2009 22:01

I've had a bad couple of days so I could be being v unreasonable I concede...

My dh's step neice is getting married in August and we've been invited to the wedding without our 7mo daughter who I'm bf (the SBIL volunteered the babysitting services of MIL (not his mum) for the day without asking her which I though was a bit !). Dh rang to say sorry, bf we can't go - and SBIL said something along the lines of 'oh dd will have teeth by then and you'll have given up bf so give us a call a week before the wedding and you can still come.' So far so good

SBIL then contacted mil (his step-mum)to say he really wanted us there and he knew she'd just love to babysit dd and that he's sure the milk issue wouldn't be a problem etc etc MIL would, I'm sure, be willing but dd is still a bit unsure around her - although we're trying to get regular weekly time together so dd and MIL will get to know each other (she used to scream at the sight of her )

Phone calls continued - and today he's been on the phone to dh three times and has invited us to the church with dd but still not to the reception. Dh thinks this is a good compromise but I'm getting a bit pissed off with the whole thing. It'll mean an hour and a half drive there for 20 mins at the church (dh hasn't seen step neice for years) - which could be spent in the churchyard if dd cries - then an hour and a half drive home.

Apparently there are babies going to the reception - the groom's neices - as they are 'too young to be left' (they're 9mo or thereabouts!) I totally understand not wanting babies at your wedding - but you have to understand that that will mean some people can't come.

I'll probably just end up doing the church thing - but I'm just a bit grrrr about the whole thing.

Incidently SBIL makes a big deal about how important family is but hasn't actually been to see our dd once in the seven months since she was born! I'm not bothered whether he sees her or not - but it's the hypocrisy that annoys me.

So AIBU?

OP posts:

Original poster

makedoandmend · 07/07/2009 22:02

If I disappear for a bit - it's because dh is nagging me to get off the computer as he has work to do. Don't mean to post and run sorry - I will be back to feel the full force of your replies!

OP posts:

PlumBumMum · 07/07/2009 22:07

I don't think you are being unreasonable,

why are other babies allowed to go but not yours, if he is so intent on having you there?

Original poster

makedoandmend · 07/07/2009 22:18

PBM - the only reason he's given is that they are the groom's sisters babies and are too young to leave. But he expects us to leave ours. I can't see how he wants it both ways - we're not close enough family to have our child there, but we're close enough for it to be very important that we go??

OP posts:

ObsidianBlackbirdMcNight · 07/07/2009 22:25

This is shit. I hate the no children at weddings thing but my friends recently said children under 1 welcome as long as the parents were aware of crying during the ceremony. Their reason was lack of funds to feed children at the reception - fair enough. However why on earth are you invited to the church and not the reception? This is the wrong way round and considering your baby won't be eating anything, and she's bf, and other babies are welcome, I'd be very pissed off and tell DH to go on his own if he wants to go.

MoChan · 07/07/2009 22:36

I would tell them that your baby is also too young to be left, so you're going to stay at home with her. You're not being unreasonable at all. There's no way I could have left my daughter at that age.

hester · 07/07/2009 22:39

YANBU.

Jux · 07/07/2009 22:55

YANBU. What's his problem? Is he hoping that your dh will go and you will stay at home with the baby? It's all utter shite and I would pin him down so he can't wriggle and has to answer your questions:

Why are other babies allowed but not yours?
Why is it so important you go, but not important enough to allow your baby to go?

Just keep asking the questions, don't shilly-shally or beat about the bush; if he havers then ask the question again when he's finished. You'll get an answer sometime, soon if he's really concerned that you go.

Dysgu · 07/07/2009 22:55

I would not go in your position. You don't want to go without your DD so don't feel pressurised into doing something that makes you unhappy.

Last September we went to a 'childfree' wedding (only bf babies were allowed as were children over 5) and I hated every minute of it! DP's cousin was getting married and I was also 5months pg and really wish I had felt string enough to say I was not going and be honest and say it was because I did not want to leave DD for the entire day. (1 hr on ferry, 2 hour drive each way.)

We left before the meal was served and people still comment on it.

I guess people are entitled to have the wedding they want BUT they should appreciate it if that means people feel unable to attend.

Stay strong and stick to your guns.

Qally · 07/07/2009 23:30

YANBU. I support couples who don't want babies at their weddings, I even support those who only want close family's babies there, but the pick'n'mix approach is unreasonable, and so is a refusal to accept that child-free will in some cases also mean parent-free. And as for trying to insist you go just to the ceremony - the no-cost solution for them - well, that's just plain rude.

shockers · 07/07/2009 23:36

No... YANBU!

Original poster

makedoandmend · 08/07/2009 15:06

Thanks everyone - I was beginning to think I was the one who was out of order! Apparently SBIL latest presumption (he's very good at presuming) is that we'll spend night at MIL who lives about and hour away from him, to cut down the journey time, to get to the church, before we turn round and go home. So, that's an evening routine disrupted with baby in the travel cot in the living room with us sleeping on the floor as we can't squeeze the cot into the spare room so that we can get up, drive an hour for 20 minutes then go home.

Un-fucking-believable...

OP posts:

Original poster

makedoandmend · 08/07/2009 15:07

And I think my DH is thinking I'm being a bit of a mardy cow and putting him in a difficult position. But I can't see it's me that's being the pain in the arse?

OP posts:

StealthPolarBear · 08/07/2009 15:17

don't understand - surely your baby will be younger than the others!! Is she just so grown up and independent compared to most?

Original poster

makedoandmend · 08/07/2009 15:46

Well obviously because I made her!

I did try and make this point to dh to pass on - but, for some reason, no one wants to rock the boat with SBIL. I think it's because he's so annoying and goes on and on until he gets what he wants, that people just roll over in the end for a quiet life.

OP posts:

StealthPolarBear · 08/07/2009 16:07

Well go without her and mention you've left her home alone with the TV remote, the phone and a couple of bottles because she's just so self sufficient, unlike the other little babies.
I can't believe if you go without her no-one will ask in polite conversation where she is! What will they expect you to say to that exactly???

littlestarschildminding · 08/07/2009 16:47

Can you not express a bottle or 2 leave LO with MIL and go enjoy yourself????
(you have until Aug to get used to expressing and get baby to take a bottle)

Book into a local hotel...book a babysitter (or MIL) into the hotel too and then just pop back to feed baby????

Im sorry but while I see your point...there has to be life after babies! Im afraid I was one of those crap flexible mummies who dumped babies and bottles of breast milk and an instruction booklet with anyone who would have em at any opportunity...they slept all over the place and got used to going to anyone for the night/ afternoon etc! As a result they have in my humble opinion grown up to be very flexible adaptable and confident kids.

It actually sounds like you don't want to go? Im sure there is a way round it if you did. If not then by all means use it as an excuse.....

StealthPolarBear · 08/07/2009 16:59

but she wants to go and take her baby, as many other people are doing!

katiestar · 08/07/2009 17:16

Deja vu !!

zeke · 08/07/2009 17:29

What on earth are they thinking?!

I have turned down two weddings because of BFing issues (both a flight or 6+ hr drive away). One friend totally didn't understand and we are not friends now (she really wasn't a good friend anyway, so relief!) and the other totally understood.

I think it is shocking they are putting you under so much pressure to go without your child!

Like you, I completely understand the wish to have a child-free wedding but to allow other babies .

I would ask them straight why it is ok for the 9 month old to go but not your 7 month old!

zeke · 08/07/2009 17:32

I like the idea of the local hotel (are they having the reception in a hotel?) - expensive for two rooms though, depends on how much you want to go!

Silver1 · 08/07/2009 17:43

YANBU, they are, if they are so keen to have your DH there, then surely they can squeeze in an extra baby who wont be consuming anything that costs money.
At the end of the day would you like to upset SBIL-Who isn't even the one getting married
or
Your DD and MIL because if DD doesn't feel secure with her they will both have a miserable time?

allaboutme · 08/07/2009 18:06

how come your MIL is free to babysit?
Has your SBIL not invited his own step Mum to the wedding? he seems to be saying he'd rather you and DH were there than his own step mum!

Just say to DH that you are not leaving DD and if she is not invited then unfortunately you cannot go. end of.

MummyDragon · 08/07/2009 18:18

YANBU at all. Your baby will not be costing the bride & groom anything to feed, and if she cries you will take her outside ... I can understand people not wanting children at their weddings due to cost issues, or just due to not liking kids much (!) but to ban breastfeeding babies (or formula-feeding babies, come to that!) who don't form part of the headcount for the cateres is utterly, utterly, silly.

We've been invited to a child-free wedding in the autumn (although the bride's son will be going, hhhhmmm) and we can't go. It's 3 hours away, it's on a Friday during the afternoon (DH is a teacher so can't take time off anyway) and we don't have anyone who could look after our kids overnight. But the bride and groom are apparently incredibly offended that we're not going!! Ggrr.

I repeat, YANBU.

Original poster

makedoandmend · 08/07/2009 20:21

littlestar - I could express but I don't really want to go out and buy a pump and bottles just for this event. Plus dd still not quite there with MIL so not happy to leave her. As for booking a hotel - just can't afford it for us let alone a babysitter or MIL! They wouldn't be able to understand this as they are absolutely loaded and it will, no doubt, be the wedding of the century

As for wanting to go - I'm so pissed off with their attitude now of course I don't want to - but I don't want to cause a step family diplomatic row either And I'm not pissed off with the bride and groom as I don't think they've had anything to do with it (and I doubt they'd give a shit if we were there or not!)

silver1 - yes he's not invited the MIL! She's a bit hurt - especially as he spent a while recently telling her how wonderful she was. I thought it was dreadful that he didn't invite her instead presuming she'll be the hired help nanny!

OP posts:

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 08/07/2009 20:24

YANBU

Just don't go.

Flip