Just wait until they have kids.....

[prufrock]

We have been invited to a wedding soon. It's one of dh's best mates (actually the guy he was with when I first met him, who I thought was really cute) They have specified no kids. Now that's fine, we did the same but he's the last one of our group to get married, so now all of us have kids so it makes it a bit more difficult and the wedding is down near Devon, and they, and all their friends come from London, so it's not like we can just go for the afternoon/evening.
But we'd sorted it out, that dd will go to MIL's and ds (who will only be 4 months and bf) will come with us and we would get a babysitter to look after him. So I called to say that was what we were doing, and would it be OK if ds comes to the church (timing/location will make it difficult for feeds otherwise) AND THEY SAID NO!

Now I can totally understand them not wanting toddlers running about, and I can understand them not wanting to have to pay for meals for children, but saying no to a 4 month old baby being at the bloody church!
Now I don't know what to do. If I leave ds at the hotel for the service it will mean being away for one of his main feeds, and he's not brilliant at taking bottles, and if he doesn't feed well at 11.30 he won't sleep properly at lunch and so will be grumpy baby for the babysitter for the rest of the afternoon. Plus it means an extra 3-4 hours babysitting at £9 an hour, which when we are already paying £210 for the hotel, and petrol to get there, and outfits and presents and £81 babysitting for the afternoon/evening..... you get the picture.

This thread really has opened an interesting can of worms, hasn?t it. It?s made me think about why I have such a strong gut reaction to the wedding thing, and I suppose it?s because I feel that the modern wedding industry has managed to turn our primary celebration of love into a selfish, egotistical money-guzzling display of narcissism.

The whole concept of ?their day? is what is wrong with the whole thing. It is not their day ? they ?call upon these persons gathered here present? to witness their promises, to celebrate their love and to support their hopes for their future together. And that ceremony, which should be so full of love and sharing, has been reduced to an hysterical obsession with the colour of the bloody table cloths and the need to have the fantasy ?perfect day?.

I cannot see how people being encouraged to be this self-centred and disproportionate, is a healthy or decent approach to life; and it?s got precious little connection with love. Which is terribly sad. And the irony is, that all the weddings I?ve ever been to where the bride and groom have chased this ?perfect day? dream have all looked the same anyway. The only wedding I remember in any detail is one where there were no flowers, no cars, no bridesmaids or flouncy dresses, but lots of love, laughter and sharing ? and champagne on the way out for every adult in the church, including parishioners who had not been invited to the wedding, but were exercising their god-given right to bear witness. And of course, there were children!

Well said MB.

Run!

well, my fellow selfish, money-grubbing, egotistical narcissists - aka married people. someone please respond to this, i'm too tired!

MB I agree, and I'm a married woman! We got married in church and we largely had the day we wanted. But at the end of the day what we wanted was to be married. The fact that the bridesmaids looked fab and the food was nice were nice asides. We didn't have abig plush do at all, in fact we did it a bit on the cheap as we didn't have much money at the time. But we wanted our friends and family to see us become Mr and Mrs, that was the main goal, so we were as accommodating as possible to that which meant I had a toddler creeping up the aisle after me, and my nephew poking his tongue out on several wedding photos, but you know what? I don't care. I got my man. We all had a great time. What else really matters?

Oh yeah, also we've been invited to the wedding of a good friend of my DHs. They've specified no kids, so we aren't going. It's a real shame, but we understand their reasons for saying so and they understand ours for giving it a miss. Real friends will, whether they have kids or not. I would love to go, but my kids come first. I guess it really is just 'each to their own'...

I think I'm in the middle on this one. My own wedding was a family affair all kids expressly invited (including our own 15m old DS). It was wonderful to have the little ones there esp. on the dance floor.

But... my mom also nearly ruined my wedding day by going on a bender the preceding 3 weeks. And boy did I feel selfish about it -- just a feeling of "I have too much going on to let myself get wrapped up in your problems". The bride & groom do have a right to be at least a little selfish.

Back to Prufrock's dilemna -- I wouldn't go. Tell your DH he can, but it's simply too impractical for you to accompany.

FWIW I am planning a wedding.
It is a non church event, with a massive party afterwards, there are about 22 children invited and I am looking forward to it immensely, just have to tell dp about it now...
I tend to agree, but it is your money and your day
Pru send em a wedding gift with 4000 condoms enclosed
LOL

Hear hear mean bean. Ditto! We took dd to a wedding a couple of months ago - she was 5 months at the time. She was quiet and enjoyed the hymns - the moment she even made a slight squeak we dashed out of the church, had a cuddle and then crept back in and I fed here at the back of the church (afte all, that's why God gave me breasts - I can't imagine he'd object to me using them!).
I hope this resolves itself - it's so hard when this kind of situation comes up with friends.
mit x

Totally agree with mean bean. I am married but had a very intimate wedding, didnt have to remortgage my house for it either!

Do agree - but it doesn't necessarily mean that all married people are like this, or that to get married you have to be sucked in by the wedding industry, or that marriage is devalued because so many people do think like that. People (some) have lost sight of what it's really all about. Getting married, being together, making a public commitment etc. And that is very sad.

She unleashed herself again this sfternoon Sobernow. Too many camparis.

Funny I can't leave this alone either.

This is what is bothering me: however much we disagree with how people choose to do their wedding day, I just can't see how it can be right - by doing the thing they've asked not be done - to pick that very day to make the point. It seems just as inherently inconsiderate, in a two wrongs don't make a right sort of way.

Actually maybe naive as I am I don't believe anyone here (let alone Prufrock, with her wise solution) would go that far anyway except in fantasy. I'm probably fretting about an imaginary bride's imaginary broken dream & should get a life.

i have to admit that im not fond of other peoples children when they behave like brats but the thought of getting married and excluding them has never crossed my mind. what would a wedding video be without at least one relative falling over drunk and all the little darlings eating cake under the table. i want everyone to have a good time and remember my wedding as being happy and full of laughter, im not in the slightest bit bothered who is there as long as no-one starts an argument with anyone else. of course....it would help if i had a partner first!

Goodness completely agree with MeanBean.

Sorry MeanBean but I strongly disagree with "The whole concept of ?their day? is what is wrong with the whole thing. It is not their day " - if you can't have what you want on your wedding day when can you have it? If people ask for no kids then they have to accept that close friends and even relatives might not be able to come but if they are willing to sacrifice this and have "their day" exactly as they want it then IMO they can!

Agree wtih meanbean, too. It's not just 'their day'. Agree that the idea of 'a perfect day' has corrupted by the wedding industry for the benefit of those who make money out of weddings.

Of course I don't think a couple should feel compelled to share their wedding day with every man woman and child who wants to come (I don't think meanbean means that either). But there are accepted ways of avoiding this, like having a small wedding abroad.

Going back to prufrock's situation, I do wonder if the 'no baby' rule is for another reason.
Perhaps the bride and groom know of another guest or guests who have older, much noisier babies or young toddlers, and feel if they say 'yes' to pruforck's baby they will have to say 'yes' to the other babies/toddlers? If for instance they have several guests with, lets say, a 4 month old, a 6 month old, a 9 month old, a 12 month old, and 15 month old could you say 'yes' to one parent without offending all the others?

To me the obvious answer is bring all the babies, but parents take them outside if they are very noisy. But perhaps this couple feel some parents would not do this, so decide they have no option but to ban all babies... ahh the joy of wedding arrangements!

message withdrawn

I went to one of thise twiglett. HUGE wedding -reception in the Ritz (lovely food), coldstream guards in attendance (are they the ones with the bearskins?) No children present. And the father of the bride spent the wedding speech thanking all his business associates. And there was a Prince Charles impersonator who talked about what a great guy the father of the bride was and how he's made his money!!! Can't remember any mention of the bride and groom. We were sat next to someone who had never met the bride or groom but knew the father through business. It was very very very odd! And I spilt red wine down the front of my dress (silk).

IO don't mind the idea of "their day" if they are going to provide everything for all their guests to ensure everyone can comply with their ideals. We have had weddings to go to every year for the past 7 or 8 now - many of the close friends and family. These have cost us a small fortune every year. And not all couples are so understanding if you say you can't attend because of some rule they have applied I'm afraid. Saying things like "no children" is fine so long as they realise that this may mean some of their guests can't/won't come. Sadly not all couples realise this and put huge pressure on people to bend to suit them - that shouldn't happen.

message withdrawn

Agree about wedding lists if people don't make sure there are plenty of reasonably-priced items. We put a range of stuff on ours, from £5 up to ooo lots of money (didn't expect anyone apart from wealthy rellies to buy the more expensive stuff). Lots of people chose to buy us things they wanted rather than off the list, which was fine too, those presents are particularly special. But at least list made sure we didn't get five identical bales of towels, like my SIL!

Mean Bean, good post. I flicked through a wedding magazine at the doctors recently and the wedding industry does seem to have got even greedier and more ridiculous: the lists of things to buy before/for the wedding day were incredibly long (favours at a fiver per guest anyone?!) Twiglett, I don't send or buy a present if I'm not going. I might send flowers or champagne at an earlier or later date if they were good friends but I wouldn't buy off list if I'd declined the invitation (which we did recently since it specified no children.)

meant buy from the list, ykwim.