Children at wedding dilema

[ohwhattodo2]

Unfortunately this is a baby and wedding one but I really need some advice!

I’m getting married to my fiancé in November this year. Even prior to getting engaged, we both said we would never want babies/young children at our wedding due to the noise/disruption they can cause. Everyone knew this and we do not have children.

Since then, my fiancé’s brother and his wife have had a baby and they will be 13 months old at the time of our wedding. We made it clear that we were still having a ‘no babies/young children’ policy and they seemed ok with this and actually talked about the arrangements for childcare etc.

Our venue has some accommodation on site and we have offered that to family and the bridal/groom party on an optional basis. We can easily fill the rooms should they choose to stay elsewhere so people are not under pressure to stay for the whole weekend.

We expected that they would choose to stay elsewhere so as to not be away from their baby for a whole weekend and there was no problem with this, we understood.

Fast forward to now and they have asked if the baby can come to our wedding and spend the weekend at our venue. They have said this is because they are struggling to find someone to look after their baby so my fiancé offered to pay for a hotel room near by for his brother’s wife’s parents to stay in. His brother and wife don’t want to do that so my fiancé explained our position with no young children and has left it at that despite his brother being extremely annoyed about it and making us feel very bad about our decision.

Our rule regarding the no babies/young children mainly came from the fact that we do not want a crying baby to disrupt the day. They had the exact same rule for their wedding 3 years ago but they want us to change our minds due to the fact that this is now a family baby.

My fiancé is now having second thoughts, not because he wants the baby there, but because he doesn’t want to look like the bad one in the family saying no and causing a rift between him and his brother. He also says we look like hypocrites because my cousin is invited who is 11. I have said there is a big difference between a 13 month old and an 11 year old.

I would like to find out peoples opinions on not allowing a 13 month old but allowing an 11 year old at the wedding as we cannot agree. Also can anyone tell me what having a 13 month old is like at a wedding as every wedding I've been to in the last few years has been child free.

It's not practical to just ban children from weddings, especially family weddings IMO, they are family events! But each to their own. I suppose it depends how much you want your brother there.

I went to a wedding without my then 13 mo. Was way better than the one I went to with my 18mo.

I'd allow babes in arms (under 9 months) and over 10 years old. Might allow some (known to be quiet and patient 8 and 9 year olds.

YABU. This is your nephew. He’s a part of the family you’re marrying into. He’s one of the people that will care about you for the rest of your life

No he isn't. He's a selfish prick who's trying to dictate to the OP how she should have her wedding, and make it all about him. He doesn't give a shit about her.

Personally I am all for child free weddings but immediate family children, including babies are always exempt from this IMO

You see I don’t get this “taking them out” business. The very act of taking them out completely disrupted my friend’s wedding. The child, like all the other children there wasn’t at all ‘naughty ‘. They were just children doing what they do.
I wouldn’t bring it up again but if the brother does remind him that his wedding was child free. If he falls back on the old chestnut of ‘family ‘ point out that a family child is just as likely to disrupt as anybody else’s child.
Ask what the issue is with the parents-in-law; if he dares to say too much for them” point out the irony of bringing a child who is “too much” to the most important day of your life.
A babe in arms is different and I am sorry but an 11 year old is completely different.
Surely to God most couples who couldn’t leave their child would decide the one not related would stay home and maybe get sitter for evening. Sad to miss it but that is what happens when you have kids.
Do not let them manipulate you. Your resentment of a ruined moment will tarnish a relationship just as much as the bully brother-in-law taking umbridge.

"Ask what the issue is with the parents-in-law; if he dares to say too much for them” point out the irony of bringing a child who is “too much” to the most important day of your life. "

36 hours of grandparents being responsible does not equal the 36 minutes if most wedding services. It's perfectly possible to say one is too much but the other isn't.

You're likely to end up with a family rift, especially if you're inviting an 11-year old from your family. It sort of depends how your ils are going to view it. If you're always going to be that witch who banned x from your wedding to your new DH's whole family, you may want to rethink. Would it still be your perfect day(tm) if your in laws didn't go in sympathy with BIL?

If that would be the icing on the cake then obviously it's a different balance.

My mother in law has Alzheimer’s. Being responsible for any baby no matter how “well behaved” would be too much.

We got married in October and only had our own daughter. Even our families from Canada left their children at home (youngest was under 1).

Stick to your guns. If you don't want children there then don't have any there.

MrsSnootyPants2018

Not the same lot fron earlier on here!

DH's brother did this to us-no babies rule-despite the fact we were flying in from Toronto and the fact that DDs birth was the spark that made him propose (on the day if her birth!). DD went to my sister and was kind of ok though quite unsettled as she was only 15months.
Got to the venue to see not one but two of their friends there with babies of a similar age to DD-I was very pissed off and it really spoiled it for us.

Your wedding your choice.

I capitulated and SIL brought 15 month DN. she did not remove her and I missed the entire sermon.
Still livid 6 years later.

Yeah it's your choice, you should stick to your decision not to have small children there. We're not having any children at our wedding either.

I know it's your wedding and your rules and all that.
But personally I don't understand this British obsession with not having children at weddings. The country I come from they are absolutely a part of the day. I've recently been to a wedding and there were loads of children a babies and the whole day felt very inclusive, everyone had a fantastic time.
What do you think will happen when a baby cries?

Children are just annoying
They scream, make a noise, run around. It's totally understandable not to want all that racket when you're saying your vows or indeed afterwards.

I usually think that the wedding is entirely up to the bride and groom as if it's awkward for invitees they can always choose not to go. But the brother and sil can't really choose not to go, can they? And I couldn't possibly have left my 13 month old for long enough to go to a wedding... he didn't really eat anything, was still breastfed, wouldn't nap for anyone other than me and was going through a clingy phase. By 15 months it was all a very different story but I still didn't leave him overnight until he was 2 and even that was very stressful. I'm guessing you're getting married some distance from where the brother lives?

I'm not engaged however do have boyfriend & children. Other than our own children at the time our wedding will be no children zone for the ceremony, at the moment our child is the youngest so not a problem, if other half's brothers were to have children I wouldn't change my mind on the ceremony, I may consider children at sit down meal however would depend on how big of a wedding, I personally can think of 9 people from my family/friends I would invite, other half's side maybe 30 so small wedding, so a loud child/crying baby would be very obvious, however my auntie had 150+ at her wedding, around 12 children ranging 4-17 for the meal & evening and their were no problems, all children were seated on child tables together. We left ours at home & enjoyed the wine (not sorry one bit, had a fantastic time & children had nice night with grandad!)

I think your both being very generous offering to pay for the hotel room nearby, not sure what their issue is, it's not like you have sprung it on them it's always been the case & also they didn't want children at their wedding & I doubt they would have changed that for you so unsure why they feel you should! If they can't get childcare that's obviously too bad, but I have missed many occasions due to childcare, one was a wedding so I offered to stay home while my other half went as it was his family!

Hope you come to a solution that suits you all & congratulations & good luck!

@twosillybulls our choice was for two reasons.

1- I didn't want the video of the vows ruined by a screaming child.
2- I don't trust my friends children to behave. They're lovely but none are really that well behaved whereas our daughter will just sit and behave, especially with my mum there.

And she did. Whole day she was perfect.

One of DH's teenaged cousins turned up to our wedding with a baby we knew nothing about. She screamed throughout our vows and the Mum didn't move her. It was very distracting during what was meant to be a special moment.

You should stick to your guns if that is what you want, but be prepared for your BIL not to attend and for a rift to occur.

We had similar issues but held the no young children line. Part of the reason was the venue wasn't particularly family friendly. We had an 8 year old and a 11 year old as we wanted their families at the wedding but those who wanted to bring younger children were politely told no

What I don't get is that almost all the big weddings where there's a service, videographer and a big fuss also has ushers. Why can't they be tasked with seating families with children at the end of rows, remind the families to take kids out if being noisy and be on alert so if a family member doesn't do it during the ceremony they go over and remind them and get them out asap.

I find it odd that people would prioritise their “perfect day” and the wedding video (that honestly no one will ever look at in a years time.. yawn) over having a sibling happy at a wedding.
We were invited to a dear friend’s wedding a few months ago and took DS along (at 3.5 mos). She did look like she’d start wailing as the ceremony started so I ran outside and kept her far away enough to not disrupt the ceremony (although she was quiet in the end anyway!). They didn’t need to accommodate us, but a wedding is supposed to be about joy and goodwill!

To me the wedding is about the vows between 2 people. There may as well be nobody else in the room.

If a couple want a child-free wedding then it's their choice. But I'd be just as happy to ask the kids to sit out of the actual ceremony for the most important bit if they were young enough to cause a fuss.

DH's GD(1) was no problem at all, until we arrived at the reception. DH spent most of the night carrying her around as her mum (DSS gfriend) kept saying 'go to grandad' and wanting him to parade her around the room for everybody to coo over. Luckily they left around 9pm so we then got to spend some actual time together.

I think entertaining a 13 month old in a hotel room all day and night sounds like a nightmare.

Is the wedding quite far away? A good compromise would be to have the grandparents babysit for the ceremony and the reception and then join you after the speeches when the day becomes more relaxed.

But personally I don't understand this British obsession with not having children at weddings.

You don't have to understand or agree with other people's choices, you just have to respect them.
One thing a lot of people who go on about "weddings are all about family" seem to forget is that a lot of siblings are not close. Relationships between siblings are often vague, or tense, or superficial. Even if there's no actual animosity, they can be at the other end of the country, and with the best will in the world you can end up not seeing each other from one Christmas to the next. Why then should you centre your entire wedding around them, and accept their partner's and children's involvement as an absolute inviolable rule? Especially if they come at the cost of friends who are actually part of your lives, if your numbers are limited? It just isn't the way everyone lives their lives now.