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

Behaviour/development

Talk to others about child development and behaviour stages here. You can find more information on our development calendar.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

babies at weddings agree or not? two parter!

73 replies

Buddhamummy · 08/10/2005 23:22

went to lovely wedding the other day. It was such a momentous occasion as the journey there for the bride and groom had been a real rollercoaster. It was always going to be real tear jerker!! the venue, the dress all gorgeous gorgeous gorgeous, and then part one:...............the baby/toddler that shouted all the way through the vowels. I kept thinking they will take him out in a minute, but they didnt. Afterwards it was as if lots of people were thinking it but it wasnt polite to say anything. Why do some parents think its "sweet"? its sooo selfish.

part two: the reception was also fantastic, such a great atmosphere, but there was one guy dancing with what looked like a 7/8 month old baby ALL night! and i mean he was REAlly jiggling her/twirling her all over the shop. I was getting quite worried but bit of an awkward situation to go and say something, but had planned to just say hello and say how sweet baby was and say oh similiar age to mine etc in hope that dad would stop moving. He did thakfully stop but also the day after all our clothes just stunk of smoke and i was thinking if we had taken dd all that smoke in her little lungs.

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

puff · 09/10/2005 21:03

Agree with custy (the sage of mumsnet).

expatinscotland · 09/10/2005 21:05

I think it should be up to the bride & groom. If I didn't agree, I'd just send a gift and well wishes along w/my regrets and not go.

I remember going to scores of them growing up - my parents come from large families - and always being bored outta my mind.

Springchicken · 09/10/2005 21:18

Bit harsh Hunker! If that post was aimed at me, I would be offended too.
Nothing wrong with pointing out potential dangers but don't think that was worded particularly well.

Re: this thread. We are getting married in July and are only inviting children within the immidiate family, ages will vary from 9 months to 15 years and if any of them started playing up badly I would expect someone to take them out of the church, not necessarily their parents.
Smokey atmosphere is down to each individual, everyone would have been aware that it was like to get smokey, loud, rowdy etc so its each to their own whether they take babies.

hunkerpumpkin · 09/10/2005 21:21

I did post that in haste, I have to say. It wasn't my usual style, and I apologise for any offence caused.

BUT shaking a baby (throwing them in the air) can be extremely dangerous. And the poster I directed it at had said she was "quite literally throwing her DD around" - hence my reply.

edam · 09/10/2005 21:46

I think it's terribly sad when people have 'no children' weddings - they completely miss the whole point of the ceremony IMO, which is about family and community. It's a fertility ritual at heart, how can you not invite kids? And if you are having a Christian wedding, how can you ignore 'suffer the little children to come unto me'? Christ talks several times in the Gospels about his love of children - how can you turn them away? What's more, CofE weddings are legally open to anyone to attend, so seems a bit rude frankly to specify a group of people who are not welcome.

Ds was 'disinvited' from a wedding when he was six weeks old - bride and groom knew I was pregnant when they issued the invite but only told us a fortnight before the wedding it was no kids (just after we'd bought their present...). Expected us to leave our tiny baby with a sitter and travel 100 miles for their precious wedding! Needless to say they are no longer friends of ours.

At our wedding, dh's neice (about three or four) joined in with the vows - saying 'me first name middle name' after the 'I, first name middle name take thee...' bits. And at the end invited everyone back to her house for tea (150 miles away)! I thought it was adorable and a compliment, frankly. A real sign that we were bringing both our families together to start a new one between us - whether we'd gone on to have children ourselves or not.

Have just been to a (rather posh) childfree wedding - closer friend who was honest about it from the start so I didn't have a problem. Had a lovely day while ds was being looked after at home. But I did think the wedding was lacking something.

weesaidie · 09/10/2005 21:47

How old are we talking here hunker? My dd (18 months) loves 'rough play.' Not being thrown so much but lots of jiggling type stuff.

Re. Weddings, parenting choice if they want to take children in the evening, but they should definitely take them out if they are crying during the ceremony.

hunkerpumpkin · 09/10/2005 21:49

It's specifically the throwing in the air part of rough play that causes the damage iirc.

hunkerpumpkin · 09/10/2005 21:50

As for age, definitely not under one for throwing in the air - it can look like shaken baby syndrome. But this is way off-topic - sorry for that!

weesaidie · 09/10/2005 21:54

Grand, I think I am ok then.

Rarrie · 10/10/2005 01:13

Sorry Edam, but I have to disagree.

What about those who marry as a sign of commitment and love to each other but plan on never having children? There are so many different reasons why people get married, why assume that it is the coming together of two families? It may just be the coming together of two people in love (particularly in secular marraiges!). My family and Ils have nothing to do with each other - they are complete strangers, live in different cities and have nothing in common. Our marraige was for us a legal issue and a sign of our commitment and trust. Nothing to do with Pagan fertility rituals or Christian families what so ever.

Also, If I had had a child talking through my vows, I think I would have gone mad... I paid one hell of a lot of money to have a very expensive video of the day (but not many photos) and I often look back on the video as a time to remind me of the very serious and deep promises my husband and I made to each other. It was a very special moment between the two of us, and I wouldn't have wanted that moment ruined by a child, no matter how cute.

However, I still add my proviso that When I got married, there were no children in my family, or my hubbys... the closest children up for an invite were the grandchildren of family friends of my/ils parents, and I certainly didn't want them ruining my wedding day... if I had have had children that I knew, that were in my family, then I would not have excluded them... so I think it depends on who the children are and why the couple are marrying, but I don't think we can always assume marriage is a family affair!

sniff · 10/10/2005 13:55

I would have kids at my wedding because all the people I would want to come have kids

I was a bridesmaid at a friends wedding a few months ago and there were lots of children there and it was dreadful The ceremony was lovely just the reception the kids were pouring bubbles in peoples drinks running riot fighting pushing tables but this isnt really the kids fault there was far to many of them in far reaching age gaps and the bigger children were teaching the little children what to do I normally take my children but on this occasion I was pleased I didnt

Roxswood · 10/10/2005 19:49

I could hear my almost two year old niece chattering away through my vows when we got married three years ago. It was lovely! It made a solemn occasion really lighthearted and intimate and we all giggled our way through the rest of the service. I think you're taking yourselves too seriously if you can't enjoy the chatter of babies and children at a wedding. I think a screaming child should be taken out, but ch and happy noises are just there way of joining in a day they have every right to take part in.
I made my wedding a no smoking zone so it was child friendly too.

Roxswood · 10/10/2005 19:53

I wouldn't go if my little girl wasn't invited to someone else's wedding.. and I wouldn't send a pressie either. People can't expect you to traumatise your children by leaving them with a carer they're not used to just because they don't want to listen to baby chatter.

homemama · 10/10/2005 20:11

We had a no children rule at our wedding too. This meant that many close friends and family couldn't make it but it was something I felt quite strongly about.

Before DS came along (and he was planned) we wanted nothing to do with other peoples children. We always chose no kids allowed holidays etc. And why do people always assume that you want to hold their newborns when they bring them into work?

I think that it's up to the couple to choose and people shouldn't be offended. If you feel this way or the logistics don't work-don't go!

jane313 · 10/10/2005 20:18

Buddhamummy, I haven't read all the threads but on your second point you must realise you are very lucky to have someone to babysit overnight. I have will probably never have that luxury and have gone to weddings by myself (we only have one friend who has ever offered to babysit and we can't afford to pay for someone) or dh and I have taken our toddler and stayed until we got fed up of running around after him.

swizzles · 10/10/2005 20:26

we had a no children rule at our wedding, but that was because very few people had children, and the two couples who did could leave them with grandparents close by.

They were all glad to have a child-free day.

However, if circumstances had been different, I would have backed down. I would rather have the important people PLUS their children at my wedding than not have them at all.

I agree with you to some extent, homemama "if you don't like it, don't come" - but then again....isn't it important to have the people you care about there to see you get married??

mommapuff · 10/10/2005 20:26

If I had stipulated no children at my wedding, then I would have put a lot of good friends in a very difficult position - some had family and friends to rely on for childcare, but many did not. I wanted to make it as easy as possible to come. Those who brought very young children and and babies sat themselves strategically at the back of the church to make an exit if necessary!

PeachyClairPumpkinPie · 10/10/2005 21:01

Edam, I am 100% with you here on this. It's not necessarily about whether brifde and groom want kids themselves, a wedding is supposed to be a celebration in the community, and kids are such an essential part of the community.

I couldn't go to my Dh's friend's wedding because he stipulated no kids (I was bf), they said they'd make an exception for me but I felt that I would stick out when everyone else was paying babysitters etc. It hurt my Dh badly.

PeachyClairPumpkinPie · 10/10/2005 21:04

The best wedding I ever went to was another of dh's maytes. their 5 year old was a bridesmaid and ran around in church, all the kids were encoraged to come up and join in. The highchairs were at points of 'honour' at the do. I had left my ds's at home (I was 36 weeks pg, I needed the break) but I actually regretted out, I felt I was missing out and it was wonderful.

At my own wedding, I put toys / joke boioks etc in the kids places to keep them amused. Worked a treat.

Rarrie · 11/10/2005 01:26

Sorry, I'm not (deliberately) being difficult here, but I just don't get the whole marriage is about family / community thing. Maybe I'm being thick, but I understand that it is a part of the Christian service, but if you go for a secular service, then the purpose of a wedding is what you make it... The legal vows we are obliged to make in this country make no reference to community or family or anything like that. (www.weddingguide.co.uk/articles/ceremonies/vows.asp)

The only reference the legal laws make is between the couple. So if this is the case, then surely the purpose of a secular wedding is whatever the couple decide it is - the reasons why they personally are getting married. If that is the case, then it is down to the couple to say whether ideas of family and community feature in their purpose of marriage. If it does, then by all means invite children, but if it does not then I don't see why someone else's idea of what makes a marriage is inflicted upon them.

Obviously, this does not apply to Christian weddings, but then it wouldn't anyway, seeing as everyone is invited to the church!!

Tortington · 11/10/2005 02:21

if you did have family members or friends with children who you thought you should invite to the wedding it would be really arsey to write on the invite "no kids" don't you think?

mogwai · 11/10/2005 18:55

forgot to add, we were glad we hadn't invited the children - a fortnight before the wedding, the reception venue wrote to us to say any children needed to have individual babysitting arranged in advance and that anything that was broken would have to be paid for - it was a stately home packed with antiques; they closed it for the day for us.

Much better not having to worry about that

Kaz33 · 11/10/2005 19:12

Well haven't read thread too long and meant to be doing parent like things.

We are getting married in July and DS1 and DS2 will of course be centre stage during the day. But it is a small family wedding. For the evening we are having a room set up in the hotel with babysitters, dvd's, toys etc... and we are expecting that the kids will soon get bored, will be entertained somewhere else and will get put to bed a little late by said babysitters.

Now my issue is with the other kids who will be invited, at least one- my sister in law's daughter
who will no doubt not be left with the babysitters and sister in law who will do everything that her baby upstages everyone else.

Flip

1 2 3