Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Other subjects
Original poster

no children wedding invite - baby 6 weeks....

114 replies

clairemow · 05/08/2006 10:00

Just wondered what you all think...

We've been invited to a wedding, where children are not invited. I totally understand this wish, and am completely comfortable leaving my 2 year old with my mum! However, at the time of the wedding, we will have a new baby who will be under 2 months, and possibly only 6 weeks, depending when he's born. I will be bf him, and don't really want to leave such a tiny baby.

Should I ask to bring the baby, or should I just not go and send DH on his own? That would be a shame, they are good friends...

OP posts:
Kiskidee · 08/08/2006 23:42

i would let them know that you would like to go but can't leave such a tiny baby so soon. good friends can understand.

i spoke to dh regarding this topic the last time a thread like this appeared. he would say the same thing and i am amazed at how differently he thinks pre-baby and post-baby.

brimfull · 08/08/2006 23:46

Can't believe they said you couldn't bring a tiny baby.
Definately don't go and don't send a gift...wankers!

beckybrastraps · 08/08/2006 23:49

Just seen your other post.

(Must read the whole thread before posting ).

Well, that's silly. Really! Perhaps they'll change their minds....

Kiskidee · 08/08/2006 23:53

just read taht they already said no.

too bad. they will understand after the have kids if not before.

i have found that feeding my child when she is hungry is number 2 on my list of priorities right after knowing that she is safe.

good for you. be strong. glad your dh is annoyed with them too.

beckybrastraps · 08/08/2006 23:59

Wait until they have a six-week old, and then remind them why you couldn't come to their wedding!

wartywarthog · 09/08/2006 00:18

gosh - sorry - didn't see that they said no. in that case i'd be spitting! !!! i would definitely not go. totally unacceptable to expect you to be seperated from your baby!

chipmonkey · 09/08/2006 00:31

Clairemow When we were getting married, children were going to be a part of it because we hoped that children would some day be a part of us. I could maybe understand that they may not understand bf and all it entails but really am at their decision. If they do have kids, a gentle reminder may not go astray.

jasper · 09/08/2006 00:45

What a shame. I think before you have kids you don't have a clue about the difference between a newborn( which is a sleeping feeding cuddling imobile bundle and no trouble to anyone) and an 18 month old (I COMPLETELY understand why you would not want one of those at your wedding!)

I know I had no idea before I had my own kids.

NotActuallyAMum · 09/08/2006 08:53

I have no children

I don't understand this "no children at weddings". OK if it's a cost issue then I guess that's different but I suspect that more often than not it isn't

When I get married next year I'm quite looking forward to watching the little boys sliding across the dance floor on their knees, and if during the evening any of them squash a sausage roll into my dress then so what? It'll clean

Original poster
clairemow · 09/08/2006 08:57

I think they are afraid that a newborn will cry all the time. In my experience of DS1, that's unlikely, they tend to sleep all day and then be awake all night, so we'd be long gone by then!!

got over my initial upset now, actually thinking it might be a relief, I remember how knackered I was at 5 weeks with DS1... We went out for a meal at 6 weeks while my mum babysat for a couple of hours and nearly fell asleep in our meals (must have looked like we were having soo much fun...). So maybe it's a blessing in disguise.

Always look on the bright side, eh.

OP posts:
Bozza · 09/08/2006 09:01

But the cost issue is not exactly relevent here is it. They will not have to pay for a place for a 6 week old will they? I think saying "no children" down to cost/dance floor issues is fine as long as you accept that some people may then decide not to come and that 6 week old breastfed babies have no effect on either the cost or dance floor.

When I got married I didn't actually even know any children. Which meant it wasn't an issue. Oh how my life has changed in 8 years. Now I am on the lookout for a kid's present nearly every week. I entertained 9 under-6s in my house on Monday while simultaneously having my hair coloured and trimmed.

Bozza · 09/08/2006 09:03

Hmm maybe they do think baby will cry a lot clairemow. But if baby has you there available to feed and comfort and pram outside for a quick walk the chances are baby will be fine.

Original poster
clairemow · 09/08/2006 09:05

crikey bozza, you're brave!

The argument being used isn't a cost one, it's that they've had to make a blanket decision for all, and if they say yes to us, they feel they have to say yes to everyone who asks (not sure how many guests will have 5 week old babies though.. not sure the difference between a 5 week old, a 5 month old, an 18 month old and a 5 year old is appreciated...), and it sounds as though they've had quite a lot of hassle from family already.

Och well, as they say, life's too short to get stressed about this. Can't be bothered. At least I won't have to fit my still bloated stomach into a dress!!!!

OP posts:
ProfessorGrammaticus · 09/08/2006 09:06

We had this exact situation 3 years ago. We spoke to the couple and explained about the BF. They were fine, so we took DS2 with us. We were conscientious about taking him out at the slightest squall during the ceremony and speeches though. I could (and can) understand that it was a special day for them and they didn't want lots of kids there. They could understand the practicalities for us, so in the end it was a non-issue really.

thewomanwhothoughtshewasahat · 09/08/2006 09:16

how to not invite children to your wedding: I had a lovely invite recently - attached to it was a note that said "Because you are all so fruitful, were we to invite all your children we would have to find an extra 60 spaces. We have decided, then, to limit the invitations to our god-children and babes-in-arms. We hope you will be able to find baby-sitters and come and enjoy letting your hair down without your little ones. If that is difficult let us know and we will explore finding baby-sitters for you near to [venue]"

I thought it was just brilliant - it's upfront, it's a good reason - not just that they didn;t want them spoiling the atmosphere (the people in question actually love kids so we know that wouldn't be the case for them), it explains who the children that are going to be there are (so no-one wonders round muttering "I thought children weren't invited"); it invites small babies and it appreciates that it might be difficult for people.

Bozza · 09/08/2006 09:16

But clairemow if you don't take your 2yo that sort of demonstrates that you are abiding by the no children thing IMO.

Still your attitude is probably the best one in the circumstances.

sassy · 09/08/2006 09:31

Hatwoman - we were invited to the wedding of one of my cousins last year that was very similar. The couple in question have 20 cousins between them, most of whom are married and many have children. They invited only their niece and 4 nephews to the rception. However, guests were told the couple would be delighted to see everyone's children in the church. This made it clear that the couple were not anti-kids, and that the decision to exclude kids was a purely practical/financial one. There were no babes under 4months, sure this would have been ok.

(I went alone, Dh stayed with our 2 because distance made taking dds to the ceremony impractical.BUt this was a sensible compromise in a difficult situation, I thought)

sassy · 09/08/2006 09:33

BTW Claire, in your situ I wouldn't go, and I would send an extremely cheap gift - the cheapest thing on the (doubtless, enormous) wedding list they prob sent n the middle of the (No Kids PLease) invitation.

NotActuallyAMum · 09/08/2006 09:35

Meant to say clairemow, in your situation I wouldn't want my DH to go. And I wouldn't send a gift either

satine · 09/08/2006 09:39

Hatwoman - that should be used as a template for every couple in that situation. No-one could take offence at that. Unlike whoever it was recently who got the invitation saying "So the big people can enjoy themselves, little people are not invited".

joelallie · 09/08/2006 11:14

A wedding is about starting a lifetime together. It is special for that reason and that reason only ....it isn't a chance for the bride and groom to turn into monsters of selfishness and self-obsession. Fine, wear a beautiful dress and pay for the perfect venue and gorgeous flowers but accept the fact that all those arrangments are for the benefit of your guests and those who care enough to want to come and witness the occasion. They are not there to massage your ego and keep-up-with-Mr-and-Mrs-Just-Married-Jones's. If you invite friends and family some of them will have kids - excluding them because they might disrupt the proceedings is unfair. It's a celebration of a union of 2 people (and their friends and families) - 10 yrs down the live no-one will remember the perfect understated white floral decorations, or the just-so bridal favours, or even the dress....they will remember what people got up to, who has too much to drink, who got caught have a 'private moment' with whom, they might remember having a good old weep when the register was signed...and they'll remember the kids, misbehaving or otherwise. Marriage is about people not things. If the couple don't understand that they are in for a hard time over the years.

Surely only in this country would we exclude kids from a family occasion. ....

joelallie · 09/08/2006 11:17

BTW - I quite understand about the cost thing and restricting it to kids in the family or god-children etc as was mentioned earlier seems a good compromise. But I hate the idea that kids aren't invited 'cos otherwise they mess up the bride's special day.

laudaud · 09/08/2006 11:35

Clairemow - just read that couple won't entertain you having baby at wedding - do you think they thought you were asking about 2 year old? I'm livid on your behalf and would suggest DH doesn't go either. What's the problem? If the baby starts crying I'm sure you would find a room to go to so he/she doesn't disturb proceedings. Last year at my best friends wedding I missed exchange of vows as DD started crying so I went outside. Also for the hour in the evening where she went through colicky crying I went to another room to try to soothe her. At that wedding there were 5 of us breastfeeding so my friend had provided a room for us to relax and change babies.

Back to the good friends comment in initial post - if they were really good friends they wouldn't make rules to exclude you from sharing their special day. Do they understand the whole concept of breastfeeding????

aitchiminh · 09/08/2006 12:09

joelallie,
you assume a lot about families and family weddings. for some people the idea of having an enormous wedding with everyone staring at them makes their stomach flip with fear. me, for example. i love my brother and sisters, none of whom yet have children, but i barely know my cousins and many of their kids are older than i am.

my husband is an only child and doesn't really get on well with his mum so only she and his gran were invited to our wedding (and a couple of friends of hers so she wouldn't get lonely).

we could not bear the idea of having to get into all this 'who to invite, who to offend' bullshit so we did the right thing for us and kept it small, didn't invite anyone with kids (apart from one three-year-old who was spoiled rotten the whole time) and did it abroad.

it was precisely to avoid people telling us what our wedding should be about, what it should mean and who should go that we could not bear to have a large wedding.

In fact, we did offend a couple of people because we didn't ask them (we were limited to 30 people including bridal party) and we did apologise to those we offended. One couple were disappointed but understood as they were in the process of organising their own wedding and got that 'if you invite x you have to invite y' and how it can all get out of hand, numbers-wise.

Another person, however, who throroughly disapproves of marriage (thinks it makes women 'chattel') and who had a 12-month-old at the time, fell out with me over it. (she's also the person who brought her son and chastised the bride for letting her new husband's cousins kids supposedly bully him in my previous post). clearly she is a towering arsehole, but it did upset me that we fell out over it as it makes things difficult even now.

but it does irritate me to hear about what a wedding should be and what it should mean. everybody's different, and so long as they are polite about it (and reasonable about small babies) then i don't really see whose business it is apart from the bride and groom. if you don't like it, don't go. Don't be rude about it, just say that you are going somewhere else on that day and you hope everyone will have a lovely time.

aitchiminh · 09/08/2006 12:11

oh joelallie, i've just read that back and it is far too aimed at you... it's really just that i've been getting cross at all the people who've been writing that 'a wedding is about family'. fair enough if you've got one you like, as my DH would say. so sorry you're taking it on the chin for everyone else...