# No Babies/Children Rule Weddings?



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

Sorry for the intrusion to the forum as I do not have a baby myself however one of my ushers does and it is causing some extreme friction!

The story is that my future-in-laws have stuck to the rules as were applied to them when they had children and also what frankly my future wife and I have encountered at 90% of the weddings we have attended. I of course would like to be flexible but the inlaws are not bending on this rule which i respect as being their right no matter how a feel about it.

This though has really upset my ushers wife as it would preclude her attending the wedding as she is unable to leave her 4 month old baby with anyone so she can come along. I have spent about 45 mins talking to her explaining she is not the only one with this problem and I'm so sad that it can't be any other way but it appears to not have appeased her one bit. The result is she has told one of my closest friends that he can't go even though he is supposed to be ushing for me.

What i want to understand is is this a fair reaction because it will damage a relationship one way or the other?


----------



## JBaxter (May 1, 2005)

Is it your wedding? You get the final say. What I have always did when I attended any special event with a "babe in arms" is sit in the back and rarely did mine start wailing full force with no warning. IF they started fussing I would just sneak out the back. I always tried to sit near the door in the back. Jack( ds4) is 7 months and I still sometimes slip out the back when he fusses.

I would drop it with your inlaws and talk to your friend and his wife tell them no matter WHAT they hear they have special permission to bring their baby. If your fried is the usher have him bring her in and seat her in the back nearest the door of her choice.


----------



## Black Orchid (Mar 28, 2005)

If it is your wedding, you and your intended need to make the decision. Your ILs can keep their own council, even if they are paying for it.

I personally, did not have any children of any age at my wedding. And I didn't invite anyone who had babies, so that wasn't an issue.

I personally would have loved an hour or two away from my DD1 when she was 4 months old, as she was a handful and always took it easy on the grandparents. So it would not be an issue for me, if I was in the usher's wife's shoes, to come without my baby for a little while.

Its YOUR wedding. You cannot possibly make everyone happy. So make yourself happy like everyone else does. They'll get over it. And if they don't, is that the kind of person you truly want to be close with in the end?


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

If it is your wedding then talk to your fiancee and change the rule. If she cannot stand up to her parents then there is other issues that you two have. Your relationship with her might be more damage by her inability to negotate and go against her parents wishes than you telling them no we are allowing baby/kids.

She is breaking/changing bonds and moving to being your partner. It is YOUR wedding just as much as her wedding. It is *not* their wedding.

I would battle this because boundries have to be set or they become a long standing problem.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

It is your wedding and it is up to you to decide.

That being said, if/when that has happened to me, I have declined to go and my husband has stood with me, it wouldn't matter if he was in the party or not, the relationship with his wife and child are more important than a friends wedding.

Though, I can see the reasoning of older children (though I don't agree), I don't see the reasoning for younger babies who don't walk, who sleep a lot and need their mothers for comfort and nursing.

oh... I see it is not even your rule... (if you are ok with children being there then then is up to you not you future IL's)


----------



## birdie22 (Apr 1, 2005)

A 4 month old is so easy to take along, compared to a rambunctious toddler, or even a crawling 9 month old. It's also extremely difficult for a nursing mom to be away from a very young infant, even for a few hours.

When ds 2 was about that age, we took him with us to a funeral and to numerous meetings with lawyers, and it was no problem. We definitely had to make other arrangements for our 3 yo, though!

I guess I'm saying, think about your goal... is it to stick to the "rules," or is it to make sure the tone of the evening is elegant and adult-oriented? A babe-in-arms is really no detriment to that, particularly if it's the child of a close friend. After all, do you want to look at those pictures years from now and remember that he couldn't come because he was a new dad?

I guess I definitely have a "side" to take on this issue, but in the end the decision is absolutely yours and your fiancee's. Good luck and best wishes!

ETA: I just noticed that this is your first post. I think it's a beautiful thing that you posted this here!







:


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

You're within reason to say that there will be no babies at your wedding, and if you say that (and I agree, it is totally up to *you and your fiancee* to say that, not your in-laws), it is within reason for your friend with the four month-old baby to stay home with his wife.

This is someone you asked to usher for you, so I presume that you're close. So I would recommend that you make room for his baby. Tell your in-laws that this guy has always been there for you, that you understand his situation, and that you can make room for *one* baby. It's about friendship.

It was considerably more challenging to accommodate elderly family (who couldn't hear well or climb stairs) at my wedding, and to accommodate dear friends and family members with dietary restrictions than it was to make the party a pleasant time for children as well as their parents. One or two balloons on the dance floor, some crayons at the kids table... and really little babies like this one don't even need that.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Subbing.


----------



## kgrace (May 3, 2007)

I think you are being very fair!
I brought my 6 month old to an elegant wedding in December and things went fine, but babies do attract attention naturally and evening black tie weddings are meant for adults really, ,, just the way it is.It's different at a beach reception or something.

I will say that I was prepared to just stay back at the hotel while my husband attended if the couple had preferred no babies. I had a nursing baby and did not want to leave her with a sitter but would not expect my husband to stay back too.
Have a lovely wedding (it's worth it to try to make every guest happy but you can only do so much sometimes)


----------



## Baby_Cakes (Jan 14, 2008)

Of course it is your decision since it's your wedding!

I think she's overreacting a bit by telling her husband (your usher) he can't attend b/c she can't go (and by can't I mean isn't willing to leave her 4 month old w/someone else).

I personally wouldn't have left my 4 month old nursling w/a babysitter, either. I would have politely declined going but let my husband go regardless.

I also think that allowing a 4 month old nursling to come is MUCH DIFFERENT than allowing a 3 year old or any other older child. Babies that age are portable and not disruptive. I agree with the PP who said that if you're close enough to this couple that you've included the husband in your wedding party, then you should/could make an exception for his new child. JMO.


----------



## Charmie981 (May 30, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MeepyCat* 
This is someone you asked to usher for you, so I presume that you're close. So I would recommend that you make room for his baby. Tell your in-laws that this guy has always been there for you, that you understand his situation, and that you can make room for *one* baby. It's about friendship.









:

I also agree that if you are willing to set the precedent of your in-laws making rules that affect your friendships in such a negative way without standing up to them, you are going to have a life long battle on your hands. I've been there for 10 years now...no end in sight. Trust me, it's better to stand firm in the beginning than to try to regain ground you've lost!! I don't think you should make a big deal out of this, but I do think, if you want your friend to ush for you, it is completely within your realm of authority as the GROOM in this wedding to tell your friend that his wife and baby are welcome to come to your wedding.

Personally, I think that relationships are one of the most important things in our lives and I believe when a wedding destroys relationships, the priorities are mixed-up. A wedding is an event...something that will be over in an hour or so...a friendship is something that is for the rest of your life. Maybe the wife is being a bit overzealous, but are you going to put your event over the relationship that precipitated you asking this guy to be an usher at your wedding?


----------



## Super Glue Mommy (Jan 4, 2009)

your wedding your decision!

All the weddings I have attended had children and I feel like they were the life of the party. Everyone made sure the children didnt interup the ceremony, they came for the after party, but would leave early so the older crowd could have a bit more fun. also the older kids tended to look out for the younger ones a great deal.


----------



## funfunkyfantastic (Feb 9, 2008)

Is there no flower girl or ring bearer?! I've never heard of a wedding without a flower girl and ring bearer (cept in vegas, lol). So true that weddings are much more fun with kids around. They provide the comic relief! I personally would never tell someone that they couldn't bring their kid. And, it sounds like your in laws are kinda stuck up. I really have never heard of a wedding where kids were not invited. You'd think they never had kids!







: Me, i'm just so rebellious that if my inlaws said no kids, i'd probably mumble some profanities at them. lol. And then i'd do it my own way. Since when do parents have any control over their adult children? Your wife should grow a pair and stand up to her parents, lol. I can't believe she'd actually listen to them!

Oh, and if I were in the usher's situation, i'd boycott the wedding too, and probably get just as many people as I could to boycott the wedding. Not a good situation if you ask me!


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Moving to Parenting since this is more a general issue than one of parenting an infant.


----------



## Ola_ (Sep 5, 2008)

I agree that you and your future wife should get to decide, NOT the in-laws. However if you choose not to have children/babies at the wedding that is perfectly reasonable in my opinion. We did not have this rule at our wedding but I was glad that no one attending had/brought little ones. If you want to make the exception for her that is fine, but if there are others with children that were not allowed to bring them then be prepared for some to get upset when they see the baby.


----------



## pumpkin (Apr 8, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MeepyCat* 
You're within reason to say that there will be no babies at your wedding, and if you say that (and I agree, it is totally up to *you and your fiancee* to say that, not your in-laws), it is within reason for your friend with the four month-old baby to stay home with his wife.









:


----------



## Carlin (Oct 14, 2006)

We had a no children rule at our wedding. I actually would have preferred to have kids there, but due to space limitations and the lack of control that some of our relatives have over their children (the wedding was on an acreage with a pond, barn, animals and other potential hazards) we made the decision not to allow children. However, we made an exception for nursing babies. This seemed to work fairly well for everyone.


----------



## syn_ack89 (Oct 1, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Baby_Cakes* 
Of course it is your decision since it's your wedding!

I think she's overreacting a bit by telling her husband (your usher) he can't attend b/c she can't go (and by can't I mean isn't willing to leave her 4 month old w/someone else).

I personally wouldn't have left my 4 month old nursling w/a babysitter, either. I would have politely declined going but let my husband go regardless.

I also think that allowing a 4 month old nursling to come is MUCH DIFFERENT than allowing a 3 year old or any other older child. Babies that age are portable and not disruptive. I agree with the PP who said that if you're close enough to this couple that you've included the husband in your wedding party, then you should/could make an exception for his new child. JMO.

I have to provide a counterpoint on saying that the mother of the 4mo old is overreacting. For example, if the wedding is not in their town and they have to travel to get there it could be burden for the husband to go alone or for the mom to go and sit in the hotel. There are plenty of reasons for her to not want her husband to go.

Just as it is YOUR choice to have no children there, it is THEIR choice (her and her husband) not to attend. As they respect your choice, you should respect theirs.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

I think it is your decision if you are paying for the wedding. If, however, your in-laws are paying for the wedding and issuing the invitations, then THEY are the hosts and get to choose. I would hope they would compromise with you, of course, but really, if you want to call the tune you also need to pay the piper.


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

For the life of me I don't understand why you are giving your in-laws any say at all in a matter which should be entirely up to you. This does not bode well for your future with their daughter, imo.


----------



## NaturalMindedMomma (Feb 5, 2007)

a wedding is a very special day and the choice is up to the couple. I personally did not want any children at my first wedding and would prefer none at my upcoming wedding. Although I have children and that is unrealistic.


----------



## NaturalMindedMomma (Feb 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *zinemama* 
For the life of me I don't understand why you are giving your in-laws any say at all in a matter which should be entirely up to you. This does not bode well for your future with their daughter, imo.

If they are contributing, they have a say. Most likely they are paying most of or a lot of the costs.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NaturalMindedMomma* 
If they are contributing, they have a say. Most likely they are paying most of or a lot of the costs.

I am so glad my parents didn't have this attitude when I got married. That's a whole other etiquette question I guess- giving gifts with strings attached.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

I'm not sure which/whose reaction you're asking about, so here's my take:

It's perfectly okay to have a child-free wedding.

However, babes-in-arms often cannot be left for hours with people other than the parents. Sometimes they can, but certainly not always.

So if you choose to have a child-free wedding, you need to graciously accept the fact that it means some people with children will not be able to attend.

Pressuring the mother and saying that other people have to abide by the same rules doesn't help. If my husband was asked to usher at a wedding and we couldn't bring a young pre-mobile baby, we would have to decline. It's just how it is.







:


----------



## NaturalMindedMomma (Feb 5, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
I am so glad my parents didn't have this attitude when I got married.

me too! LOL


----------



## zinemama (Feb 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NaturalMindedMomma* 
If they are contributing, they have a say. Most likely they are paying most of or a lot of the costs.

They may have chosen to pay for it but still, doesn't the couple plan the wedding? Isn't it supposed to be _their_ day?


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

What is your fiancee's feelings on the subject - is it possible that she would like a no kids wedding (which is absolutely fine and understandable) and is having her parents take the fall?
Are your future in laws financing this wedding - is it possible that cost is playing a part in the no kids invited rule? Some reception locations charge the same for toddlers as they do for adults.
Is it possible that they are inforcing the no kids rule so strictly because there are some invited with children who would pitch a fit if others were allowed to bring their kids and they were not?
There are so many reasons as to why they said what they did - the best route to take at this moment would be to discuss it with your fiancee first and see how things go from there.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

I think it works like this. If parents decide to pay for a wedding, it's a gift from them. Most parents (I think) like to work with the couple to give them the day that they want, obviously within budget contraints of course. Some may choose to do things their way. Since it's a gift, the couple cannot "make" the giver give them what they want - but they can of course decline the gift gracefully.

I could be wrong, but I think that's how it works. Again, I think most people are reasonable and if they are in a position to gift a wedding, they usually like to do what the couple wants (with possibly some discussion on some points).

If they are really digging in their heels about this, that's an awkward situation and an unfortunate one. It would make me be very careful of my inlaws in the future.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

Yep, you accept it. You have the right to make/keep the rule and he has the right not to come.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

I'd just accept it. It's not the end of the world. These things happen when you have kids. It IS very childish and vindictive of your Usher's wife to ban her husband from attending, but it is their family business, not yours.


----------



## vbactivist (Oct 4, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??


Sure, what choice do you have but to accept it?

I would probably send my husband alone, but maybe he's irritaed that his wife can't come, ?


----------



## TinkerBelle (Jun 29, 2005)

hammieg said:


> Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. *The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??[*/QUOTE]
> 
> I don't see where you have any other choice but to accept it.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Yep, you accept it. You have the right to make/keep the rule and he has the right not to come.

yeah that.

i don't have a problem with baby free weddings myself, but the last time we were invited to one our dd was 3 months old & no way we could leave her behind. so we both stayed behind with her. if the wedding was of a good friend of dp's, then he would go without me & the baby though. but your friends can do as they chose.


----------



## tbone_kneegrabber (Oct 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
I'd just accept it. It's not the end of the world. These things happen when you have kids. It IS very childish and vindictive of your Usher's wife to ban her husband from attending, but it is their family business, not yours.

Um I'm sorry but it is NOT "childish and vindictive" to say, I need help taking care of OUR child so I need you to stay home if we all can't go. It is realistic to ask for help and to DEMAND that help from your co-parent.


----------



## roxyrox (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

Yes, I think you have to do just that.
I live in England also and while many wedding invitations are "no kids" almost all have an "except babes in arms, who are of course welcome" exemption on them. And I would think a 4mo is a "babe in arms"!.
What difference will it make to you if a 4mo baby is there? It will likely sleep the whole time!


----------



## Ackray (Feb 11, 2004)

I prefer weddings and receptions without children. Could you compromise and have her come to the reception but not the actual wedding. You can't make a 4 month old cooperate during the wedding. The mother should understand that.

I never understand these arguments. Am I the only one who would be psyched to stay home with my baby while my DH had to usher at a wedding?









HTH.


----------



## tappinerp (Jun 14, 2006)

I understand you wanting your friend there to usher- but if there is absolutely no way that there can be an exception- then yes. Accept it. Don't hold a grudge against your friend- if the tables were turned- it would be a difficult decision for you to make as well. Trust me, your friend is just as frustrated as you are.

For what it's worth- my dh's best friend was married back in december. The wedding was in another state and required travel on our part. Dh was the best man. While it was a "no children" wedding- they made an exception for members of the wedding party. Meaning- the flower girl and ring bearer, their sibblings, and for our ds. I am sure that there were some other guests who were annoyed, but it was such a relief for us to not have to choose between our son and dh's best friend. I sat in the back with ds and when he started getting restless (he was 2.5 at the time) we excused ourseleves without anyone noticing. We stayed for the the dinner and the toasts, etc. About that time, I left the reception with ds and went back to the hotel. Dh spent the rest of the evening at the wedding. I think it worked out really well. And again, it was only possible for us to be able to attend and for dh to be in the wedding party because they made this concession.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tbone_kneegrabber* 
Um I'm sorry but it is NOT "childish and vindictive" to say, I need help taking care of OUR child so I need you to stay home if we all can't go. It is realistic to ask for help and to DEMAND that help from your co-parent.


It's one evening and his friend's wedding - it is childish and demanding. I assume that this usher helps co-parent at other times, a few hours away from home certainly would not be unmanageable.


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Hammieg, what are you looking for here? Because it sounds like your mind is made up on the course of actions you're going to take. And yeah, if the wife and baby can't come, you are going to have to accept that your friend can't either.

There is no etiquette rule so strict that it cannot ever be bent. Etiquette is intended as a tool to help people avoid offending each other and hurting each others feelings. Clinging to a rule when you know it hurts someone you care about is, well, not good for that relationship.

ETA: ANd without knowing the particular circumstances of the usher's family, I can't say that the wife is being at all unreasonable. Post-partum depression can be aggravated by isolation, it's possible that she's home with the baby alone all week, and if you're in the wedding (as opposed to just attending it) it's not a few hours, it's an all-day (sometimes all weekend) commitment. She's well within reason to require that her partner help meet her needs by either bringing her along or staying home with her.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *roxyrox* 
Yes, I think you have to do just that.
I live in England also and while many wedding invitations are "no kids" almost all have an "except babes in arms, who are of course welcome" exemption on them. And I would think a 4mo is a "babe in arms"!.
What difference will it make to you if a 4mo baby is there? It will likely sleep the whole time!









It makes me think of a quote from Winnicott:
"There is no such thing as a baby, there is a baby and someone."

Babes-in-arms/nurslings are part and parcel of their parents. IMO, you can't just separate them out as if they're removable parts. You, of course, have the right to stick to your guns and make that dictum based on some unspoken etiquette "rule," but others have the right to disagree. If you have the right to make the decisions for your wedding, surely he and his wife have the right to decide what's best for their family.Some may see the wife as being childish and vindictive; I see sticking to a rule that is hurting a friend as harsh and cold-hearted. I think you need to decide what's more important to you-- following a supposed rule being laid out by your in-laws or having your friend there.


----------



## pumpkin (Apr 8, 2003)

Of course you have to accept that your friend will not be attending. I would stop trying to convince him and his wife that he should come. It is their decision, just like it is your decision to not allow babies at the wedding.


----------



## JudiAU (Jun 29, 2008)

This wedding is for you and your wife. It has very little to do with your inlaws ideas about who should attend. It is your decision to include or exclude them.

Children are children. A nursing babe in arms really isn't the same thing. It is very, very common to make exceptions for them, even when a no children policy is applied to the wedding. Parents of older children will understand and not be offended.

As an usher, he is a good friend. It would be very normal to make an exception for him.

If I was in a similar circumstance and no exception wasn't being made, then personally, I wouldn't attend and my husband would. I would think it unfortunate but chalk it up to the fact that people without kids just don't really understand what a four month old needs, especially a nursing one. I wouldn't be grossly offended. But, yes, lots of people with infants would.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Is this a BF infant? If not, I'd say stand your ground. But if the babe is EBF, it would be different. I'd let them come but with the understanding that momma and baby sit at the back of the church and exit upon the first peep from baby!









FWIW, I have a friend who's getting married in an elaborate catholic ceremony just 2 1/2 weeks after my due date. She's already banned children/babies, but has told me mine will be the only one allowed because the babe will be so young and EBF. I will purposely sit at the back and make a quick exit if baby get fussy, so it's not that I'm being insensitive really by making this suggestion. It's what I'd do and what I'd expect another momma to do at my wedding.


----------



## sahmama_12 (May 25, 2008)

Yes, you must accept their decision if you are sticking with your decision. In matters of etiquette I believe it is accepted that a babe in arms either nursing or not is not a separate person but part of his/her mother. If you consider this a exemption for babe in arms in easier to deal with. But again if your rule cannot be changed no matter what, you will need to accept that your friend may choose to spend time with his wife and child. My husband would with no question, not because I made him or would not allow him to attend but because his relationship to me and our children is important to him, more so than a single event in a friend's life.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

Quote:

So do i just accept that he can't come??
Yep.

You have every right to decide who is and is not invited to your wedding. I'm totally with ya on that one. And guests have every right to look at the invitation and decide if they will or will not attend, for whatever reason.

If I were the wife, I'd just stay home if no sitter were available. It's one wedding, a few hours, who cares! Really, to me, it's just not that big a deal. Apparently she doesn't feel this way. You can't ask your friend to come to your wedding and tick off his wife - it's not fair to ask him to choose you over her and it's not fair to be mad at him when he decides to keep the peace at home. I know you're not married yet, but it's not a situation you'd appreciate being in either. Just say sorry you can't make it, would have been nice to have you there, we'll get together after. It's not worth holding a grudge.

I know it may seem like a huge deal right now - it's not. As someone with an 11th anniv coming up in two days, trust me, unless you nurse this grudge on purpose it won't be long before you get a little perspective on this and realize that it's just not worth being mad about.


----------



## EFmom (Mar 16, 2002)

If you want your friend to usher, you need to invite his family. If you can't do that, accept that while he is still your friend, he cannot accept your invitation. No harm, no foul, it's just a situation that doesn't work out for everyone.

I don't think it is at all childish of his wife to not want him to go if his family isn't invited, and you should stop badgering her about it. My husband would never go to a wedding without me (he wouldn't even ask me, it just wouldn't occur to him to go).

I do think that it is odd that it is your wedding and it appears that you don't have a problem with the child, yet you won't invite his family.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

I should have probably pointed out for some others that it is their house where the reception will be and they are paying for it. I did ask my parents about it and they and others were in agreement that they are giving us this "present" so they can make some rules we just sadly have to go along with it. So it's not my choice which is why I'm so confused by the reaction of one person who should be central to the day.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I should have probably pointed out for some others that it is their house where the reception will be and they are paying for it. I did ask my parents about it and they and others were in agreement that they are giving us this "present" so they can make some rules we just sadly have to go along with it. So it's not my choice which is why I'm so confused by the reaction of one person who should be central to the day.

It's only central because you're making it central. You want to not have babies and you want your friend to come anyway. I just don't think you're going to get what you want.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

So are you interested in Natural Family Living issues?


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

I think your best bet is to just be kind, let them both know that it's not your idea and you'd love to have them there, ILs just won't budge.

You're both in the same situation. YOUR new wife is in a difficult postion (parents hosting a reception) and you're trying to support HER and not rock the boat with the new inlaws. They have a new baby, maybe his wife was looking forward to time out around people or showing off the baby and now it's not going to happen and she's a little bruised. He's trying to support HIS wife. The first year with a new baby can be really really hard and people get sensitive about odd things. The first year with new ILs and a new marriage can be hard and people get sensitive about odd things. Just say you understand because you're in the same boat and make plans to celebrate (your wedding, their baby) later.


----------



## roxyrox (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I should have probably pointed out for some others that it is their house where the reception will be and they are paying for it. I did ask my parents about it and they and others were in agreement that they are giving us this "present" so they can make some rules we just sadly have to go along with it. So it's not my choice which is why I'm so confused by the reaction of one person who should be central to the day.

It doesn't matter who's paying for it, it's YOUR wedding. YOU and your fiance get to make the decisions about the guest list! Your wedding day is about YOU and who YOU want there (not who your in-laws want/don't want!).


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

Things are non negotiable, this is one. We talked about it and cases were put forward from both sides but this was the end result, after all you make exception for one and there are 25 kids behind them wondering why they couldn't come.


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Things are non negotiable, this is one. We talked about it and cases were put forward from both sides but this was the end result, after all you make exception for one and there are 25 kids behind them wondering why they couldn't come.









I'm not sure what you want. You made your choice and your friend made his. If you're waiting for him to come knocking on your door to say "You were right, I was wrong, and I will do what you want" I don't think it's going to happen. As my fourth grade guidance counselor used to say, "You cannot change other people. You can only decide how you are going to react." And in the immortal words of The Rolling Stones "You can't always get what you want."


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 







I'm not sure what you want. You made your choice and your friend made his. If you're waiting for him to come knocking on your door to say "You were right, I was wrong, and I will do what you want" I don't think it's going to happen. As my fourth grade guidance counselor used to say, "You cannot change other people. You can only decide how you are going to react." And in the immortal words of The Rolling Stones "You can't always get what you want."

Yeah, I agree.

IME weddings without children are booze fests. If I could not attend because I had an infant then I would not want my husband attending either.

Also some people have a harder time after having a baby or the baby might be teething or whatever, if she doesn't want her husband to go then she just doesn't want her husband to go.


----------



## sunnmama (Jul 3, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Things are non negotiable, this is one. .

It sounds like your friend and his wife feel the same way







:

It is disappointing, but it needn't affect the friendship _unless you let it_.


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

He doesn't want to tick off his wife, you don't want to tick off your in laws - your final option is to let her set up baby and sitter in a spare room at the ILs house somewhere so she can pop in often to BF, comfort, and check up on baby.

It is what it is. You can decide to be mad about it our you can say, ok, I understand, we'll miss you, and get going. This is how it is. To quote mine and many other grannies everywhere, put your big girl panties on and deal


----------



## User101 (Mar 3, 2002)

OP, I also think you may not be getting the answer you're seeking here on MDC because this is an attachment parenting/natural family living forum. Our Statement of Purpose states:

Quote:

Mothering celebrates the experience of parenthood as worthy of one's best efforts and fosters awareness of the immense importance and value of family life in the development of the full human potential of parents and children. At Mothering we recognize parents as experts and seek to provide truly helpful information upon which parents can make informed choices. Mothering is both a fierce advocate of the needs and rights of the child and a gentle supporter of the parents, and we encourage decision-making that considers the needs of all family members. We explore the reality of human relationships in the family setting, recognizing that raising the heirs of our civilization well is the prerequisite for a healthy society.

Mothering advocates natural family living, including the ancient way of being with babies and children that is known today as attachment parenting. This way is reliant on the inherent integrity of children and the inviolate intuition of parents. The family is the dominion of parents and children and authoritative knowledge rests with them. This website is a place to safely explore all the aspects involved in such a parenting philosophy.
This isn't to say that you aren't going to find people here who agree with you, but for the most part, people are going to assume that if the mother doesn't want to separate from her child and doesn't want her husband to attend without her, the family is making the best decision for them. And even on your wedding day, the needs of their baby are going to trump yours, at least for them.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Yeah, I was wondering what the OP was looking for, the posts are very confusing. I guess he's looking for us to say he should pitch a fit and "make" his friend come?

I'm not even sure if our answers are strictly based on natural family living - it's just poor etiquette to try to force anyone to do something against their will. And even if it wasn't poor etiquette, I don't see how it's going to acheive anything other than resentment and a broken friendship.

IMO there isn't an issue. There's only an issue if you make it an issue. You've extended an invitation to two of the three family members, it was declined. There's really not much more to be said or done other than "sorry you can't make it, let's get together some other time."


----------



## AllisonR (May 5, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
Yep.

You have every right to decide who is and is not invited to your wedding. I'm totally with ya on that one. And guests have every right to look at the invitation and decide if they will or will not attend, for whatever reason.

If I were the wife, I'd just stay home if no sitter were available. It's one wedding, a few hours, who cares! Really, to me, it's just not that big a deal. Apparently she doesn't feel this way. Y*ou can't ask your friend to come to your wedding and tick off his wife - it's not fair to ask him to choose you over her and it's not fair to be mad at him when he decides to keep the peace at home.* I know you're not married yet, but it's not a situation you'd appreciate being in either. Just say sorry you can't make it, would have been nice to have you there, we'll get together after. It's not worth holding a grudge.

I know it may seem like a huge deal right now - it's not. As someone with an 11th anniv coming up in two days, trust me, unless you nurse this grudge on purpose it won't be long before you get a little perspective on this and realize that it's just not worth being mad about.

Bolding mine. ITA! I applaud this entire post. You think this is a huge deal. In perspective, it really is not. Ask another friend to be an usher. Problem solved.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I should have probably pointed out for some others that it is their house where the reception will be and they are paying for it. I did ask my parents about it and they and others were in agreement that they are giving us this "present" so they can make some rules we just sadly have to go along with it. So it's not my choice which is why I'm so confused by the reaction of one person who should be central to the day.

OK, so you are stuck in the middle. You made your decision. Your friend made his decision. Accept it and move on. Not sure why you are confused though. He is not central to the day. He is central to his wife and new baby. For the wedding, you and your new bride are central to the day. Not the usher.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Things are non negotiable, this is one. We talked about it and cases were put forward from both sides but this was the end result, after all you make exception for one and there are 25 kids behind them wondering why they couldn't come.

You do not have to make an exception. No babies. Nothing wrong with that, your wedding, your choice. Your friends wife can not come with her baby. Period. But then YOU must accept the consequences of your decision, that your friend can not come, because for whatever reason, he needs to be at home, taking care of HIS wife and HIS child. You want him to chose you over his family? What kind of friend are you that would want him to do that? Why don't you be gracious to your friend, and say, "I understand you can not come, that you need to be home with your wife and baby. Let's get together sometime in the future when your wife and child can congratulate us as well." I think you ought to maybe step back and imagine that since you do not have a 4 month old, that maybe your friend is in a different place in his life than you are, and maybe you can not understand it, but you can accept it, graciously.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
Yep, you accept it. You have the right to make/keep the rule and he has the right not to come.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *EFmom* 
If you want your friend to usher, you need to invite his family. If you can't do that, accept that while he is still your friend, he cannot accept your invitation. No harm, no foul, it's just a situation that doesn't work out for everyone.









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *annettemarie* 
It's only central because you're making it central. You want to not have babies and you want your friend to come anyway. I just don't think you're going to get what you want.

















:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
You do not have to make an exception. No babies. Nothing wrong with that, your wedding, your choice. Your friends wife can not come with her baby. Period. But then YOU must accept the consequences of your decision, that your friend can not come, because for whatever reason, he needs to be at home, taking care of HIS wife and HIS child. You want him to chose you over his family?









:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

Noooo. The problem is that there is a conflict between what YOU need/want for your wedding and what THEY need/want for their family. The no-children rule is non-negotiable for you, fine. The no-separation rule is non-negotiable for them, also fine.

You don't really have any option here other than to accept that he can't come. What else are you going to do? If we somehow all agreed that your friend's wife was a crazy lunatic and of course your friend should agree to come to the wedding....that wouldn't change the reality of the situation that they just AREN'T going to come if they can't bring the baby. You may think that's stupid, you may disagree with it, but it's not your decision.
*
Your only choice here is whether you accept this graciously and understandingly to help preserve the friendship, or you pitch a fit and insult his wife and take it personally.*


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
You do not have to make an exception. No babies. Nothing wrong with that, your wedding, your choice. Your friends wife can not come with her baby. Period. But then YOU must accept the consequences of your decision, that your friend can not come, because for whatever reason, he needs to be at home, taking care of HIS wife and HIS child. You want him to chose you over his family? What kind of friend are you that would want him to do that? Why don't you be gracious to your friend, and say, "I understand you can not come, that you need to be home with your wife and baby. Let's get together sometime in the future when your wife and child can congratulate us as well." I think you ought to maybe step back and imagine that since you do not have a 4 month old, that maybe your friend is in a different place in his life than you are, and maybe you can not understand it, but you can accept it, graciously.

Exactly!


----------



## jlovesl (Dec 19, 2008)

Why don't you want kids at the wedding?????Children are such a joy to watch all dressed up and dancing. But I have never been to a wedding where kids were not allowed.


----------



## ziggyzaazaa (May 20, 2009)

I want my daughter soon to be toddler to by my flower girl







And my boys, the ring bearers, I think it would be wonderful to make it a family thing, I mean afterall you are all stuck with eachother till death anyway so thats another way of looking at it. Id make it a wonderful memerable experience!.


----------



## jlovesl (Dec 19, 2008)

Here here totally agree. Some people do not know how very hard it is to be home with a EBF baby till they have their own. Like heck my husband is going to go out and party when I'm stuck at home.


----------



## Black Orchid (Mar 28, 2005)

Why am I experience deja vu while reading this thread?


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Black Orchid* 
Why am I experience deja vu while reading this thread?

Because every wedding thread turns out exactly the same.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
Yeah, I agree.

IME weddings without children are booze fests. If I could not attend because I had an infant then I would not want my husband attending either.

IME the presence or absence of children has no bearing on whether a wedding is a booze fest.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *choli* 
IME the presence or absence of children has no bearing on whether a wedding is a booze fest.

Exactly.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

I haven't read all the replies, but if it's important to you, go get any hardcore ettiquette book and it will say that it's always assumed that women with babes in arms (a 4 month old is) are assumed to be bringing the babes in arms. So sayeth Emily Post.

I like it when weddings are about real people, real relationships. If these people are important to you, and this is important to them, then I would stand up for them. It's supposed to be a day about family and love and you. I know sometimes a no-kids wedding is called for, but my whole perspective on weddings is just that babies and kids make sense!







good luck navigating the situation!


----------



## Swan3 (Aug 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

Definitely you would need to accept that. Once children come for many family is a package deal. It is for us as well. Not sure if you're planning on having a family some day but I sense you'll be looking back on this rule and maybe thinking it's not such a great one?

And as a wife myself, your rule excludes her presence because she cannot be separate from her baby. That's just how it is. There are many who believe that there is a fourth trimester to pregnancy. In some cultures, baby and mother are not even considered separate beings until a year has passed...developmentally, it takes several months for the child to understand that he & mum are separate...so separations (no matter how we justify them) can be traumatic for a child that young. And if your rule excludes the wife, which it does...it makes sense to me that the husband should support her as his loyalties are to her for life....kind of like the vows you'll be making on that day to your future wife.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *funfunkyfantastic* 
Oh, and if I were in the usher's situation, i'd boycott the wedding too, and probably get just as many people as I could to boycott the wedding. Not a good situation if you ask me!


Which is malicious, spiteful and a good deal ruder than any invitation requesting that children be left at home. I only hope you were joking.







:


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
It's one evening and his friend's wedding - it is childish and demanding. I assume that this usher helps co-parent at other times, a few hours away from home certainly would not be unmanageable.

I agree. A wedding is a hugely important event in someone's life. To insist that your husband missed a good friend's wedding because you're annoyed with the friend - well, I just can't imagine doing such a thing.


----------



## prothyraia (Feb 12, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
I agree. A wedding is a hugely important event in someone's life. To insist that your husband missed a good friend's wedding because you're annoyed with the friend - well, I just can't imagine doing such a thing.

Why would you assume she's insisting he stay home because she's annoyed with the friend?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I of course would like to be flexible but the inlaws are not bending on this rule which i respect as being their right no matter how a feel about it.

umm...how is it "their right"? I thought this was _your_ wedding. Your in-laws don't get to determine your guest list. Are they always control freaks or is this unusual for them?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Thanks for all the replies everyone. I think i should be a little clearer that this wedding is in england and will be governed by several rules of etiquette. This rule is very normal; as i said at least 90% of the weddings i go to have it. The rule is also not going to be bent no matter what happens. All the other guests are ok with it and as some have mentioned are happy for the excuse to get some time out. Another guest is also in the same boat and his wife has happily stayed at home to let the husband come along. The problem is my Ushers wife has taken complete exception to this and is banning my great friend from attending. So do i just accept that he can't come??

Of course you accept it. What else can you do? It's his choice whether or not he wants to attend.

Honestly, the tone of your post bugs me. What the other wife is doing has nothing to do with it. For whatever reason (and there could be many), this particular usher's wife isn't okay with it, and he's backing her up. You have nothing further to do with it. You have a rule in place for this event. They're not comfortable attending with that rule in place. Done deal.


----------



## TCMoulton (Oct 30, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *funfunkyfantastic* 
Oh, and if I were in the usher's situation, i'd boycott the wedding too, and probably get just as many people as I could to boycott the wedding. Not a good situation if you ask me!

I read this yesterday but it bothered me - why be so spiteful just because a couple doesn't invite children to a wedding - as the OP mentioned the wedding is at the home of his future in laws, chances are it is not a babyproof home. If his fiancee doesn't have a problem with the no babies/children decision then I believe that should be respected the same as the decision of the guests who cannot attend due to their children.

If I were in the place of the usher's wife I would tell him to have a great time and take a few pictures to show me after - no need for him to miss his friend's big day just as I would assume he would do the same for me if the tables were turned.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I should have probably pointed out for some others that it is their house where the reception will be and they are paying for it. I did ask my parents about it and they and others were in agreement that they are giving us this "present" so they can make some rules we just sadly have to go along with it. So it's not my choice which is why I'm so confused by the reaction of one person who should be central to the day.

What reaction? He's been invited, and he's declined. He's not actually under some kind of contractual obligation to be your usher, is he? Nothing signed in blood when you were both 18 or anything like that?

Your terms don't work for him. This is done. I don't get what your problem is, to be honest. I'd elope before I'd let someone else "gift" me with a wedding that precluded me from inviting my own guests.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Things are non negotiable, this is one. We talked about it and cases were put forward from both sides but this was the end result, after all you make exception for one and there are 25 kids behind them wondering why they couldn't come.

Okay. So, _what's the issue_? Your rules are non negotiable. Your rules don't work for your friend. Your friend has declined to attend. That's the way it works. If an event doesn't work for you, you decline.

(Oh - and I highly doubt there are 25 babes-in-arms belonging to members of your wedding party, so there's some serious exaggeration there, imo.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *AllisonR* 
Not sure why you are confused though. He is not central to the day. He is central to his wife and new baby.

<snip>

You do not have to make an exception. No babies. Nothing wrong with that, your wedding, your choice. Your friends wife can not come with her baby. Period. But then YOU must accept the consequences of your decision, that your friend can not come, because for whatever reason, he needs to be at home, taking care of HIS wife and HIS child. You want him to chose you over his family? What kind of friend are you that would want him to do that?

<snip>

I think you ought to maybe step back and imagine that since you do not have a 4 month old, that maybe your friend is in a different place in his life than you are, and maybe you can not understand it, but you can accept it, graciously.

This.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
The problem is that there is a conflict between what YOU need/want for your wedding and what THEY need/want for their family. The no-children rule is non-negotiable for you, fine. The no-separation rule is non-negotiable for them, also fine.

<snip>

...that they just AREN'T going to come if they can't bring the baby. You may think that's stupid, you may disagree with it, but it's not your decision.
*
Your only choice here is whether you accept this graciously and understandingly to help preserve the friendship, or you pitch a fit and insult his wife and take it personally.*

And, this.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
I agree. A wedding is a hugely important event in someone's life. To insist that your husband missed a good friend's wedding because you're annoyed with the friend - well, I just can't imagine doing such a thing.

Where did anybody say that the usher's wife is annoyed with the OP, or that her annoyance is the reason the usher isn't going? Maybe she has PPD. Maybe this is a really high needs baby. Maybe she's only getting 3 hours sleep a night, even with his help. Maybe she had a really bad birth and is still physically in rough shape (I was nowhere near back to normal in 4 months after my 2nd c-section). Maybe he's working a lot of overtime and/or hanging out with friends a lot, and the weekend is the only break she ever gets. Maybe it's none of these things. All we know is that she won't go without the baby (neither would I) and isn't okay with her husband leaving them behind.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *TCMoulton* 
I read this yesterday but it bothered me - why be so spiteful just because a couple doesn't invite children to a wedding - as the OP mentioned the wedding is at the home of his future in laws, chances are it is not a babyproof home. If his fiancee doesn't have a problem with the no babies/children decision then I believe *that should be respected the same as the decision of the guests who cannot attend due to their children.*

If I were in the place of the usher's wife I would tell him to have a great time and take a few pictures to show me after - no need for him to miss his friend's big day just as I would assume he would do the same for me if the tables were turned.

I wouldn't be like the poster you quoted, but I think it goes beyond that. The OP's posts here make it pretty obvious that he's not willing to just accept that his friend has declined. I'd be pretty upset if one of dh's friends continued to urge him to disregard my feelings in the matter. Yeah - this happens to be a wedding, but that doesn't change anything.

As for the bolded part...the OP is _not_ respecting that his guest can't attend. That's the whole point of this thread. His friend has already declined, and the OP is getting bent about it.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *prothyraia* 
Why would you assume she's insisting he stay home because she's annoyed with the friend?









One of the earlier threads said that the wife had "banned" (I think the word was) her husband from going. That, to me, is suggestive of wifely annoyance! And evidently the reason the wife won;t go is that she doesn't have anyone to leave the child with (as opposed to "she needs to have her husband at home with her.") The OP wasn't entirely clear but I think it's a reasonable assumption.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
One of the earlier threads said that the wife had "banned" (I think the word was) her husband from going. That, to me, is suggestive of wifely annoyance! And evidently the reason the wife won;t go is that she doesn't have anyone to leave the child with (as opposed to "she needs to have her husband at home with her.") The OP wasn't entirely clear but I think it's a reasonable assumption.

The OP may have said the wife "banned" her husband, but that doesn't mean that's what's going on. As an example, have you never heard men accusing other men of being "whipped" or "hen pecked", because those men choose to stay home? The underlying assumption is that, of course, the man is being forced or bullied or...something. Without the potential usher weighing in himself, nobody has a clue what his wife has or hasn't said to her husband.

And, I see no conflict between not having someone to leave the baby with and needing her husband's help. If she had someone to leave the baby with, she could leave the baby. (I wouldn't, but that's a personal choice.) Since she can't leave the baby, she could very well need her husband's help. And, it's also possible the usher and/or his wife have used "can't find anyone to babysit" as a polite fiction, so they don't have to get into their own family decisions about when they're prepared to leave the baby.

I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.


----------



## teale (Feb 20, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Black Orchid* 
If it is your wedding, you and your intended need to make the decision. Your ILs can keep their own council, even if they are paying for it.

I personally, did not have any children of any age at my wedding. And I didn't invite anyone who had babies, so that wasn't an issue.

I personally would have loved an hour or two away from my DD1 when she was 4 months old, as she was a handful and always took it easy on the grandparents. So it would not be an issue for me, if I was in the usher's wife's shoes, to come without my baby for a little while.

Its YOUR wedding. You cannot possibly make everyone happy. So make yourself happy like everyone else does. They'll get over it. And if they don't, is that the kind of person you truly want to be close with in the end?

This times a million.

I know there are a lot of people on here with the school of thought that kids should always be allowed, but I think that this is a decision that the couple can and should make on their own.

If they choose to have no babies, or kids, then so be it. May it mean that I might not go? Absolutely, but I'm sure the couple has already taken that into consideration when they made the decision.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *teale* 
This times a million.

I know there are a lot of people on here with the school of thought that kids should always be allowed, but I think that this is a decision that the couple can and should make on their own.

If they choose to have no babies, or kids, then so be it. May it mean that I might not go? Absolutely, but I'm sure the couple has already taken that into consideration when they made the decision.

See...this is the thing. I think people can make whatever rule they want for their wedding. They can require all their guests to wear blue, or shocking pink sneakers, for all I care. But, they also have to take it graciously when people decline, for _whatever reason_. That's where I think the OP is falling down. He doesn't seem to have taken into consideration that limiting the guest list...limits the guest list.

I personally wouldn't go to a child-free wedding, except for one or two very special people. That's my choice. If people want me there badly enough to throw a fit if I don't go, then they can accommodate me. If they don't want to accommodate me, they don't need to throw a fit if I choose not to attend.

I truly don't understand why this always becomes so contentious on both sides.


----------



## slylives (Mar 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
The OP may have said the wife "banned" her husband, but that doesn't mean that's what's going on.

I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.


Firstly, I find posts to be more helpful when they respond to what the OP actually posted, and not what the poster seems to think is going on behind the scenes. I took the OP at face value. He said the wife banned her husband. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the wife banned her husband.

Secondly, no-one has called her a shrew. Unreasonable, perhaps. But no name-calling.


----------



## teale (Feb 20, 2009)

Quote:

See...this is the thing. I think people can make whatever rule they want for their wedding. They can require all their guests to wear blue, or shocking pink sneakers, for all I care. But, they also have to take it graciously when people decline, for whatever reason. That's where I think the OP is falling down. He doesn't seem to have taken into consideration that limiting the guest list...limits the guest list.
That's an annoyance for me too. Couple who limit the guest list, but then cry foul when people decline for obvious reasons. If you limit the guest list, then be prepared for their to be extra room at the venue.

Unfortunately, some people believe that their wedding should be the most important thing in everyone's life, and don't get that some people have much different priorities.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

you should stop badgering her about it.
Absolutely. She has a young baby. What if she has postpartum depression and really needs someone there? What if she still hasn't recovered from the birth? You have no business trying to convince her otherwise.


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Everyone is within their rights here. I am assuming that your future ILs are putting in a hefty chunk of the $$$ to get a say in things, so it is their right to say no kids. It is your friend's wife's right to say that she doesn't want him to go if she and the baby can't go. And you're friend's right to say he can't if the baby can't.

No one is being childish. Childish would be showing up with an uninvited baby.

The mature thing to do is accept their regrets and move on with your life and let them move on with theirs.


----------



## Swan3 (Aug 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I guess I just don't understand why there are people in this thread who want to assume the woman is a shrew, based on the fact that her husband's buddy doesn't like her decision.









:

I'm often shocked at threads on this forum where in similar situations the woman is painted to be a master manipulator, immature, crazy, etc etc. Why are we (mostly women) so quick to paint other women in this light? Why is it immature or selfish of her to need her husband to help care for their child? Why is it only HER job and why should someone's wedding trump a family's needs at such a critical time?


----------



## EviesMom (Nov 30, 2004)

There are, quite frankly, millions of women who would probably decline to attend your wedding under the circumstances. It would not be something they wish to attend. There are also millions of men who would decline to attend your wedding under the circumstances.

Wedding invites get declined all the time all around the world every single day. Yes, the bridal party is nominally more important than a generic guest, but I don't see how you could really consider anyone but bride and groom "central" to the wedding. (My husbands best friend, who he asked to be the best man, could not attend our wedding. He was already booked to leave for a foreign country for study, leaving about 3 days before our wedding. (And he was going quite rural traveling for anthropology, so there was no "fly back for the wedding" option; and we did NOT ever suggest that he change his plans for OUR day). He's a lovely guy, and I still think he's great, but he declined to be the best man. Totally fine.)

You asked your friend, he declined, and that's pretty much it. If I were him, or his wife, I would have asked about the baby situation to check, said "okay, thanks for letting us know. We'll need to look into our schedules and finances and such, of course. We'll let you know ASAP." A few days later we would have politely declined, and not given you a specific reason either, because it's extremely rude to ask for one! "No, I'm very sorry, but our situation currently just does not allow it," and sent along a nice gift, maybe something for a friend to read at the wedding in our stead/something for you to read before the wedding, etc.

You don't have to like his wife, or his decision, or let it affect your "close friendship" with the man. But you do have to move on. You have to accept that other people's decisions are NOT your business at all!

I have no idea what's with the rationalizations on why the wife might not want to go sans teeny tiny infant, or have hubby go without her, and might have PPD, and blah blah blah. The tone of the OP would irritate me enough to "ban" DH from going bc it's very possessive IMO (and I'm poly, so I share DH well!). Maybe they don't want to spend the cash? Maybe they already have a full schedule? Maybe the guy doesn't care about you as much as you think he should? So what?

As for the MIL/FIL paying for the wedding; I wouldn't personally have stood for it in my own wedding, but I can see why you would. Having a child-friendly wedding is not as important to you as pleasing your future in-laws. Totally reasonable IMO. Being at your wedding is not as important to the guy as being with his wife and baby. That's totally reasonable too.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
Firstly, I find posts to be more helpful when they respond to what the OP actually posted, and not what the poster seems to think is going on behind the scenes. I took the OP at face value. He said the wife banned her husband. In the absence of evidence to suggest otherwise, the wife banned her husband.

But, the OP never provided anything to say that she banned him, except an opinion. We don't _know_ what's going on behind the scenes, and neither does the OP. If he were talking about something his wife told him, that's one thing - but he's not. He's reporting the situation as he sees it, or as he was told second-hand.

Quote:

Secondly, no-one has called her a shrew. Unreasonable, perhaps. But no name-calling.
I never said anybody _called_ her a shrew. I said people are assuming she is one, and that's the vibe I'm getting.

_Why_ are we assuming, with _no_ evidence, that she's banned her husband because she's annoyed? Where does anything in this thread say that?


----------



## PaigeC (Nov 25, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Sorry for the intrusion to the forum as I do not have a baby myself however one of my ushers does and it is causing some extreme friction!

The story is that my future-in-laws have stuck to the rules as were applied to them when they had children and also what frankly my future wife and I have encountered at 90% of the weddings we have attended. I of course would like to be flexible but the inlaws are not bending on this rule which i respect as being their right no matter how a feel about it.

This though has really upset my ushers wife as it would preclude her attending the wedding as she is unable to leave her 4 month old baby with anyone so she can come along. I have spent about 45 mins talking to her explaining she is not the only one with this problem and I'm so sad that it can't be any other way but it appears to not have appeased her one bit. The *result is she has told one of my closest friends that he can't go even though he is supposed to be ushing for me.*

What i want to understand is is this a fair reaction because it will damage a relationship one way or the other?

I haven't read all the replies so I'm sorry if this has been hashed out already. The bolded part above is what bothered me. A woman, even a wife, can't make a grown man "not go" somewhere. I think husbands, men in general, society often use this excuse and it is insulting to women. When my DH says "the wife won't let me go" even jokingly I get upset. This paints the woman as a dictator. I hate that. If he isn't going it is because he made that choice given a (private) discussion with his wife.

As far as the no-kids rule: is this really how 90% of weddings are? Definitely not in my family. What is a wedding without cute kids in their finery? Either way to me a 4 month old does not "count" as "kids." A nursling is a physical extension of mom IMO. However, I would decline without angst (and expecting none in return) if that was what the bridal party wanted.

But as a whole issue: why are we (general we) excluding children from life events? I feel like maybe the age-segregation of public schooling is leaking into our society. My church has a nursery that my dd is expected to be in - she would literally never worship with DH and I until she was 18 they way they do it. I just don't get it. A wild and crazy reception I can see but not a wedding - a wedding is a cultural ritual that children can benefit from.


----------



## Just Elsa (May 18, 2009)

You have the right to exclude members of your friend's family from your wedding.

He has the right to decline to come without them.

You didn't want his whole family. You wanted to pick and choose. He decided he didn't want to take part on your terms. It's your wedding and you have the right to dictate the terms but you don't have the right to get mad at people who opt out.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Any time you send an invitation that excludes family members, you risk getting turned down by the entire family. If they don't want to be divided on your terms, even for an afternoon, that's absolutely their prerogative. The wife won't come without the baby. That's her prerogative, and the details of her feeding, childcare, etc. arrangements are none of your business. She hasn't got to justify it to you. The husband isn't coming without the wife. Even if she has no good reason (and she probably does) and she really is a controlling shrew (we have no reason to think that she is, other than that you, a man with no experience of marriage, have chosen to put that spin on it), that's STILL none of your business. You don't get to pry into other people's relationships to try to persuade them to put you above their own spouse, even for an afternoon.

Between that, and the thing with the in-laws and their money, I think you have a lot to learn about marriage.

Let me break it down for you:

Wife trumps buddies.

Baby trumps buddies.

Wife plus baby, vs. buddies? Fuggedaboutit.

Husband trumps parents AND their precious money. (I'm sorry, in what book of high class English etiquette is it written that they get to be vulgarly controlling?) You got yourself a ticking time bomb, right there. Good luck.


----------



## St. Margaret (May 19, 2006)

WORD, Galatea!


----------



## purplemoon (Sep 24, 2008)

I have to agree. I have been watching this thread. The idea that he is bowing to his IL's is a bad omen. Bad? Oh yeah, good luck.

The idea that he doesn't get babies and parents? Eh, I call that naive. He'll get it someday, if his IL's let him procreate.


----------



## onlyzombiecat (Aug 15, 2004)

He isn't coming if you don't let them bring the baby. You don't want to do that.
You say I'm sorry to hear you can't come, find a new usher and move on with your wedding/life. Simple as that. Don't make it a big deal.

I don't know what role ushers play in weddings where you are but here it is rather minor... they direct people to seating. Hardly central to the wedding or reception.


----------



## Swan3 (Aug 5, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *onlyzombiecat* 
I don't know what role ushers play in weddings where you are but here it is rather minor... they direct people to seating. Hardly central to the wedding or reception.

Gosh and when you put it that way, hardly worth causing so much stress for the couple (Mom & Dad) not to mention a newborn. I'm wondering what the alternative is to just accepting it?


----------



## accountclosed2 (May 28, 2007)

Your decision if it is your wedding. That said, if my husband was your usher he wouldn't go if our babe-in-arms wasn't welcome. Because he would look at it as in the bridal couple not wanting his _wife_ there, as to us it is a given that breastfed babes in arms go where mama goes.

In the past, pre-baby, I've been to two wedding that were specifically no kids. However, at both of them the bride and groom had made an exception for one baby: in one case the baby of a close friend of the bride's, in the other the baby of the groom's brother. In neither of these cases did the babies in any way disturb the wedding. The mothers sat with baby in the back, and if they cried I assume they went outside, I heard nothing. In both cases I think the mother left part-way through the reception, as it was dinner-time, and I assume they took their babies home to bed.


----------



## calpurnia (Sep 26, 2004)

we were the exception at my sister in law's child free wedding. dd was 3 weeks old, & there was no way in hell i was leaving her behind, or that dp was going to go the wedding without us.

sister in law had a grand childfree english wedding paid for (to the tune of £25,000) by her parents, & they had a HUGE say in the guest list


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MommytoC* 
Personally, I've been to two weddings without kids or babies, and they were incredibly boring. Weddings with kids are always a blast!

Wow, that's a pretty insulting view of your friends. I don't think it would sway many brides & grooms towards inviting kids to tell them that their wedding will be utterly boring unless kids are there. Most people like to think that their friends find them interesting.


----------



## Rivka5 (Jul 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShwarmaQueen* 
Is this a BF infant? If not, I'd say stand your ground. But if the babe is EBF, it would be different.

This argument absolutely drives me up the wall. Do you think that bottle-fed babies aren't attached to their mothers? Do you think think mothers of bottle-fed four-month-olds don't give a damn about leaving them?

My breastfeeding relationship with my first child failed, and she was entirely bottle-fed by four months. I felt horrible about it. I can't even imagine how much worse I would have felt if someone had told me that she wasn't welcome somewhere that a breastfed baby _was_ welcome... because obviously our attachment wasn't worth supporting.


----------



## JavaJunkie (Jan 16, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
This argument absolutely drives me up the wall. Do you think that bottle-fed babies aren't attached to their mothers? Do you think think mothers of bottle-fed four-month-olds don't give a damn about leaving them?

My breastfeeding relationship with my first child failed, and she was entirely bottle-fed by four months. I felt horrible about it. I can't even imagine how much worse I would have felt if someone had told me that she wasn't welcome somewhere that a breastfed baby _was_ welcome... because obviously our attachment wasn't worth supporting.

Yeah, I don't think it matters whether a babe that young is BF or FF.

My baby is FF(previous 3 children were all BF). I can't leave her any more than I could leave my EBF babies. She won't eat for anyone else...and frankly, it doesn't matter. She and I are a pair. Period.


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

DH stood up in a wedding when DD was an infant, it was no children. We didn't leave her over night, so we left her with family that lived near by. She had a rough time, with strangers. The bride and groom were CLUELESS why we didn't want to leave her overnight. They had given us special permission, because DH was in the wedding party, but then changed their mind at the last minute because their friends with kids didn't think it was fair (and really, it wasn't), they had their feelings hurt because we left early, it was a big issue and caused a rift for a while.

I had another friend, out of state, who initially said no kids. He was the last of our "group" from college to marry and most of us had infants. So many people said they couldn't come, out of state, if they couldn't bring their kids, that they backed down and changed their mind!

I don't understand the "no kids at weddings" thing. The most fun, and most formal, weddings I've been to have had kids. Kids are fun, and choosing to bring them should be up the parents, IMO. All that said, it is CLEARLY the decision of the bride and groom, on their special day. NOT the IL's, parents, friends or other people....


----------



## MacKinnon (Jun 15, 2004)

I posted w/o reading and to come back to second Galatea's post! She's totally, absolutely right and repeated what many other posters said. You'll see, down the road when you have kids, that your wife and children trump your buddies.

You get to set the rules for your wedding, but you cannot therefore be upset when your guests choose not to come because of them.


----------



## kiwiva (Apr 17, 2006)

I think we get a huge build up when we are planning our weddings and can get carried away on the importance of every single thing. Really I don't think you will notice his absence at the wedding. It is a shame that you are making this into a relationship issue for the two of you.

I think a lot of people get caught up with invitation = requirement to accept. You invited him to be an usher, he cannot accept. It's nothing personal; it just won't work with his current circumstances.

It is absolutely reasonable that she won't leave her tiny baby. I certainly couldn't have. But I also would not have become bent out of shape if they didn't want her at a wedding. I just would have stayed home and hoped that the couple would not take it personally, as my staying home would not have been meant as some insult to them.

I really think you should let this go.


----------



## Thisbirdwillfly (May 10, 2009)

I wonder how the OPs future bride feels about all this time and attention being paid to one member of the wedding party. I mean, really, it's childish to keep carrying on about it.

Your usher is shining you on. He's putting his wife before his friends, as you too are supposed to once married. He's blaming his wife because you are not being gracious. I give him credit for putting his family first but think it's terrible that he is blaming his wife, as if she had him under lock and key.

You're getting married. It's time to grow up. Our friends cannot always be with us, even on very special days. Stop badgering a new mother and be gracious. You might even consider admiring this woman a bit as she is not persuaded by what other people are doing. I have no idea why you'd want adult friends who still bend into peer pressure.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

I think not allowing children at weddings is.....

Shallow. Strange. Sad.

Weddings are a celebration of coupling and children are a result of coupling. Marriage is the foundation of family and children are almost always what makes a "couple" a "family." So, barring children, and therefore the mothers, from weddings is freakishly strange.

Decent parents will not allow a baby to disrupt a ceremony, and plenty of them wouldn't stay long/late at a reception if they go at all..... plus, inexpensive plans can easily be made for children at receptions so that everyone can have a good time. However, a _can_ understand money issues ($$ per plate) and asking that children not attend the after party..... I wouldn't do that, but I can at least wrap my head around it.

A friend of mine who excluded children from his or her wedding would soon become an acquaintance and get a card of congratulations (and silent prayers that they will grow-up.)

FTR: I felt this way _before_ DH and I had our daughter. Children were more than welcome at our wedding and party afterwards and, frankly, they were better behaved than plenty of the adult guests.

Also - for the record - I do not think that children need to be everywhere all of the time..... bars, uber-swanky/quiet coffee shops, mosh pits..... but "no children" at _weddings_ really blows me away.

Trin.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty* 
Decent parents will not allow a baby to disrupt a ceremony,

"Decent" is so subjective though. I mean, there are "good" parents who let their kids whine and cry through a religious service because they think it's ok and it's "what kids do" and everyone else should just "deal with it". We've all been on an airplane where a kid cried the entire time and the parents hardly did anything to appease their child. I could go on and on. I think people in general have different opinions of what is socially acceptable, and fussy babies is one. Personally, I would exit the second my lo would make a peep. Others, I'm not so sure would.







This is why the rule should be in place and the OP should accept that the usher is not coming and MOVE ON with his wedding.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ShwarmaQueen* 
"Decent" is so subjective though. I mean, there are "good" parents who let their kids whine and cry through a religious service because they think it's ok and it's "what kids do" and everyone else should just "deal with it". We've all been on an airplane where a kid cried the entire time and the parents hardly did anything to appease their child. I could go on and on. I think people in general have different opinions of what is socially acceptable, and fussy babies is one. Personally, I would exit the second my lo would make a peep. Others, I'm not so sure would.







This is why the rule should be in place and the OP should accept that the usher is not coming and MOVE ON with his wedding.









Also, parents (me included) often sort of readjust to what "quiet" means. A cooing baby is music to a parent's ears but not always to everyone else. I think there was another discussion on this topic where someone mentioned you could hear her baby poo, and I laughed because that was SO TRUE of my son and I could just see that happening in the middle of a moment in a ceremony designed to be quiet and reflective. Wouldn't that be great on the DVD.

For my husband and I, we didn't care. We enjoy a little chaos and we were happy to include kids, although at the time our family didn't have any but one baby (hard to believe when we look at it now!)

Other people do care; they want a solemn and dignified and adult event. That's fine.

But OP, it doesn't let you out of the basic obligations and courtesies of friendship, which is to permit a gracious regret - well, graciously. Invite another friend instead and treasure the one who's refused, because this is probably the man who is going to drive over to sit with you and your first child in the ER when you need him to, if you know what I mean.


----------



## choli (Jun 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *slylives* 
Which is malicious, spiteful and a good deal ruder than any invitation requesting that children be left at home. I only hope you were joking.







:

No kidding. My world may revolve around my kids, but I don't expect everyone else to feel the same way and boycott a wedding over it. It's NOT all about me and my kids.


----------



## ShwarmaQueen (Mar 28, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I think there was another discussion on this topic where someone mentioned you could hear her baby poo, and I laughed because that was SO TRUE of my son and I could just see that happening in the middle of a moment in a ceremony designed to be quiet and reflective. Wouldn't that be great on the DVD.









So true!!!


----------



## NiteNicole (May 19, 2003)

My brother got married when my daughter was five months old. When the invitations rolled out, dd was not on them. I sort of asked around (because I felt like asking directly really put the bride on the spot) and my brother got back to me that yes, her parents who were paying for the whole thing, didn't really want children there. He also said that if I wanted, they could make a stink (SIL agreed) but I could tell he was uncomfortable about it. I was lucky enough to have a trusted sitter (friend of the family) that I could ask to keep DD. We went to the wedding and left the reception earlier. Her parents have not turned out to be control freaks, they have been very kind and her mother and my daughter are now great buddies. In their circle of friends, no one brings small children to weddings, thats' just how it is. I didn't take it personally because it wasn't personal.

What I'm saying is, these people are paying for the reception and having it in their home. They would like to have a party for grown ups and it sounds like this isn't some weird thing they've pulled out of their butts, it's just how things are done. The OP is trying not to start out his marriage by causing a stink with his in laws over something pretty minor. That doesn't make them control freaks or him a doormat (and honestly, I am all ABOUT boundaries between adults and their parents but some of the MY CRAZY MIL threads on parenting forms make me want to point out that it's ok to bend sometimes). The wife isn't nuts for not wanting to leave her baby. The friend isn't a jerk for not wanting to leave his wife and baby. It's not what I would do, but it's not weird or controlling. No one is being all that unreasonable in this situation UNLESS the OP decides to hold a grudge about this. Let it go. You can't have everything all the time.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *NiteNicole* 
What I'm saying is, these people are paying for the reception and having it in their home. They would like to have a party for grown ups and it sounds like this isn't some weird thing they've pulled out of their butts, it's just how things are done. The OP is trying not to start out his marriage by causing a stink with his in laws over something pretty minor.

It's apparently not minor to him, as he's had an extended conversation with the baby's mom, trying to make her change her mind, and is now posting here asking what he can do. It's too minor to upset his in-laws, but not too minor to hassle a new(ish) mom for 45 minutes? Doesn't compute.

I guess rules really are different in different places. I've never heard of anybody's parents deciding who their children could invite to their own wedding, no matter who was footing the bill. In my circle, that would be considered _unbelievably_ rude. (Mind you, I haven't exactly hidden my lack of patience with formal etiquette, so this could definitely be entirely by the book.)


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Rivka5* 
Wow, that's a pretty insulting view of your friends. I don't think it would sway many brides & grooms towards inviting kids to tell them that their wedding will be utterly boring unless kids are there. Most people like to think that their friends find them interesting.

What does it have to do with your friends? At most weddings I've attended, I've had about 5 minutes to talk to the couple getting married. If I find the other 2-3 hours boring, I can't see any way in which it's a reflection on the couple, or on how interesting I find them.

I doubt I'd attend a child-free wedding, now that I have kids. Before I had kids, I attended several (not surprising, as I was one of the first in my circle of friends, and first in my family, to have a baby). I did want to share the day with my friends, and wanted them to know they had my support and all that...but I didn't like them much. Different strokes and all that...


----------



## SweetPotato (Apr 29, 2006)

I haven't read all the responses, but just wanted to add my experience. My dh was best man at his borther's wedding (his only sibling) Our dd was 10 months old at the time and we were expected to leave her with a completely unknown sitter. I spent the entire service playing with her in the nursery, and she came with us to the reception (late evening, black tie) While I know that people can make their own rules, I have to admit that this experience has tainted my feelings toward my bil and his wife. I also tend to wonder how their attitudes toward children will change when they have some of their own and when his wife's siblings have children (her family called the shots at their wedding) We had already travelled 10+ hours to be there, we had no one there with whom we could comfortably leave her, and she was still exclusively breastfed, so it would have been tough anyhow. I'm still hurt that bil didn't want his niece there, or me.

If you really care about your relationship with your friend, then I'd discuss an exception with your fiancee. It doesn't matter whether someone is justified in not wanting children there, or whether the wife is being over-sensitive-- the fact is that not allowing them will likely cause hurt feelings, regardless of who is "right"- and those feelings can linger for a long time.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

Everyone for your input it has been most enlightening for me but also sad that several of you have misread the situation entirely.

Firstly i did not call her for my own good, her husband asked me too as it was causing him real friction at home. So i had not hassled them one bit and spent the entire conversation telling the reasons behind the decision we had come to. Not once did i ask her what her problem was i why she didn't want to come so please stop having a pop at me.

Secondly i should add that it was her that got so worked up that other friends were telling me she was saying things like - i can't believe he lived with us for 4 months when he was between properties and now he's effectively saying i can't come to the wedding! (i did live with them it's true 3 years ago but i was paying full market rent so it was not just a favour they benefitted too, i would also like to add wat has it got to do with the no babies rule at my wedding)

I can't explain everything but please read the question and don't go off at tangents as some of you are crucifying me and you don't even know me. Can i also say that i'm not some child hating doormat, i have 2 good children and want to have children but that has got nothing to do with this i just have no choice on this.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
i just have no choice on this.

Normally I wouldn't even respond, nothing new to add, but I think this attitude is really confusing people.

Folks are supporting your decision to not invite children to the wedding - but it's really confusing when you keep saying you have NO CHOICE. Of course you have a choice, and if you really believe your hands are tied and you have absolutely no options - well, I don't know, it's just really strange to me, and to other people too.

It sounds to me like it wasn't necessarily your idea to not invite children, but you're fine with it - which is totally fine - but hiding behind the "I have no choice" mantra.


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

In my tradition, children are the reason for the wedding....so the rule is that children are invited.

Different traditions have different rules, but it's not unsurprising that someone would be upset that they are effectively excluded from the celebration by a rule that a babe in arms would not be allowed to attend.


----------



## limabean (Aug 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Firstly i did not call her for my own good, her husband asked me too as it was causing him real friction at home.

What kind of person asks a friend to call his wife and get involved in their marital discussions? So strange.

I don't understand how this is still an issue for you. You issued an invitation, they have declined. The only action I would take in your situation is to put their names on the "no" side of the RSVP list, and get on with planning the other details of the wedding (or letting your ILs plan them, as the case may be).


----------



## MeepyCat (Oct 11, 2006)

Hammieg, your friends were out of line to argue with you about the terms of the invitation - you put down a simple rule for your wedding, it's reasonable for people to ask if you are willing to make an exception, it's not reasonable for them to argue with you about it. So there's that.

Weddings are always going to inspire one or two people to be unreasonable. You kind of just have to shrug and deal.

But from there - really? You have *no* choice? None? You would, if it was up to you, let these people come, it's just your in-laws rule... well, this would be why we may think you're being a doormat here. This is your choice too, your decision, man up and admit that you're making it.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
now he's effectively saying i can't come to the wedding!

The thing is, that's exactly what you're doing. A mother and a young infant are a unit. It's like you invited her, but told her she couldn't bring her left hand. You asked her husband to do you a favor by being in your wedding, and then told him his wife couldn't come. Some babies absolutely cannot be separated from their mothers at that age, especially if they are breastfeeding.


----------



## eclipse (Mar 13, 2003)

Also, I think you were out of line to call and try to convince his wife to change her mind, regardless of what your friend asked you to do (he was out of line to ask, and you were also out of line to do it). I suspect at this point she's feeling pretty ganged up on.

Also, you say

Quote:

i have 2 good children and want to have children
So you have children? Are they going to be at the wedding?

You absoloutely have a choice in this. You are deciding the baby (and therefore the mother) aren't welcome. That's fine - you can do that. But don't pretend you aren't choosing that - take some responsibility here.


----------



## HappyMommy2 (Jan 27, 2007)

Part of being a bride is getting the wedding you want.

Part of being a mama is missing some weddings and other functions because of your children.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Everyone for your input it has been most enlightening for me but also sad that several of you have misread the situation entirely.

Firstly i did not call her for my own good, her husband asked me too as it was causing him real friction at home. So i had not hassled them one bit and spent the entire conversation telling the reasons behind the decision we had come to. Not once did i ask her what her problem was i why she didn't want to come so please stop having a pop at me.

Secondly i should add that it was her that got so worked up that other friends were telling me she was saying things like - i can't believe he lived with us for 4 months when he was between properties and now he's effectively saying i can't come to the wedding! (i did live with them it's true 3 years ago but i was paying full market rent so it was not just a favour they benefitted too, i would also like to add wat has it got to do with the no babies rule at my wedding)

I can't explain everything but please read the question and don't go off at tangents as some of you are crucifying me and you don't even know me. Can i also say that i'm not some child hating doormat, i have 2 good children and want to have children but that has got nothing to do with this i just have no choice on this.

First...I think it was a mistake to call her. Having you call his wife makes no sense at all. At some point, he has to decide for himself if he's going or not. The fact that he asked you to call _his_ wife sounds really, really strange to me. This sounds like a messed up situation, all around. I'd be insanely furious if dh got his friend to call me in this situation...and it probably wouldn't make me any more kindly disposed to you or to the situation (or to my dh, for that matter).

Secondly, we're posting based on what _you_ have said about the situation. Your tone about your friend's wife was very dismissive. Your tone about your in-laws is that of a helpless victim. If that's not the case, I'm sorry for misinterpreting, but that's the way it comes across.

Thirdly, I didn't take the "lived with us" thing as meaning "he owes us". I took it as hurt feelings that you lived in their home for four months, but she's being excluded from this. I don't know how long ago that was, but I can see it stinging a bit...especially for someone with a 4 month old baby at home. That can be a really tough time, emotionally, for a lot of reasons...and one of those reasons is that many people end up feeling very isolated from "real" life. (I like that, but many people don't.) I suspect she's feeling irrelevant and invisible and her feelings are hurt. (As an aside...if you had lived with me, and then made sure to tell people that you paid "full market rent", so I "benefitted", as well, I'd be annoyed. People in my space is a huge deal to me, and getting rent wouldn't offset that much. You also don't mention if you ate meals with them, etc. Full market rent can still be a great deal, if it's a boarding type of situation.)

Fourth. Yes - you do have a choice. You've made it. You've chosen to go along with the "no children" rule, and also chosen not to make an exception for babes in arms, which effectively excludes your friend's wife. That's fine. To each their own. But, own it. Seriously.

Oh, and one little point. If you're spending 45 minutes telling your friend's wife the reasons for the decision you have come to, where does "I have no choice" come in. It doesn't take 45 minutes to say, "my future in-laws are calling the shots, and that's the rule they've made".


----------



## Jelinifer (Mar 20, 2009)

Hammieg: Alot of people are giving you a hard time because of the choice your in laws are making and "how it will set the tone for the rest of your life with your bride."

Let me tell you....I feel for you! I got married a little over a year ago and my parents paid for my wedding, and pretty much planned the whole thing because they paid for it. Although we didn't have the same issue as you, there were many other aspects to our wedding that I didn't have much of a say over because they were paying for the event and disagreeing would have caused so much strife that it would have ruinned our day. Also-my husband and I rolled with it because I love my parents, no matter how crazy and controlling they are and my husband loves me....and my crazy parents come as part of that package deal! I have no advice regarding your situation but I just wanted to sympathize because not many people are doing that here!!!


----------



## BetsyS (Nov 8, 2004)

In my circles, weddings aren't the big $50,000 shindigs that they are in many parts of the counry.

We tend to get married during the day, at a church. Receptions are in the fellowship hall of the church. No drinking, no dancing. The buffet tends to be heavy finger foods. We have punch. The reception lasts maybe 2 hours, from start to finish. Cake, nuts. People do funny things to the couple's car, we throw birdseed at them as they leave, and they are off to the honeymoon.

These weddings tend to have a fair amount of kids around.

That said, my first cousin was married 2 years ago in a typical wedding for our circles. His bride didn't want my 8 month old baby there. I ended up leaving him at home, with Daddy, though I agonized over the choice for several weeks.

And, I still think that bride is borderline crazy for insisting on no children. She's having her first baby this year. We'll see how she changes.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
I suspect at this point she's feeling pretty ganged up on..









:
I can't even imagine how I'd feel at this point, if I were the friend's wife. (Admittedly, I think I'd be more than happy at that point to send my husband off to the wedding, but I'd probably be thinking, "please don't come back"...although maybe not. I'm not that rational on some fronts in those first few months.)


----------



## chfriend (Aug 29, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyMommy2* 
Part of being a bride is getting the wedding you want.

Part of being a mama is missing some weddings and other functions because of your children.

If you put "in my tradition" in front of that, cool.

But in other traditions, part of being a bride is joining two families with the hope of nurturing children in them. Part of being a bride is honoring the community you are a part of and participating in generations old traditions, not just getting "the wedding you want."

In other traditions, part of being a mama is getting your choice of seats since you are responsible for the well being of the next generation.


----------



## paxye (Mar 31, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *eclipse* 
The thing is, that's exactly what you're doing. A mother and a young infant are a unit. It's like you invited her, but told her she couldn't bring her left hand. You asked her husband to do you a favor by being in your wedding, and then told him his wife couldn't come. Some babies absolutely cannot be separated from their mothers at that age, especially if they are breastfeeding.

This is exactly what you need to understand...

By not inviting an infant, you are not inviting the mom, at that age they are inseparable... It is true that some women don't mind leaving their children at such a young age, and I honestly do not understand how or why they would do that, because for me and the the women in my circle we would never fathom leaving such a small baby even for an hour or two, it is just not done.

You need to accept that their lack of presence is a direct consequence of your choice to follow your IL's rules. You say that you have no choice then accept they have no choice either.


----------



## claras_mom (Apr 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Also, parents (me included) often sort of readjust to what "quiet" means. A cooing baby is music to a parent's ears but not always to everyone else. I think there was another discussion on this topic where someone mentioned you could hear her baby poo, and I laughed because that was SO TRUE of my son and I could just see that happening in the middle of a moment in a ceremony designed to be quiet and reflective. Wouldn't that be great on the DVD.

And a softly snoring baby is incredibly loud, if it's at a concert or a church service!









Quote:

But OP, it doesn't let you out of the basic obligations and courtesies of friendship, which is to permit a gracious regret - well, graciously. Invite another friend instead and treasure the one who's refused, because this is probably the man who is going to drive over to sit with you and your first child in the ER when you need him to, if you know what I mean.








:


----------



## Just Elsa (May 18, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Firstly i did not call her for my own good, her husband asked me too as it was causing him real friction at home.

...

Secondly i should add that it was her that got so worked up that other friends were telling me she was saying things

...

i have 2 good children and want to have children but that has got nothing to do with this i just have no choice on this.


You can't have kids at your wedding (even though you have kids) because your in laws won't "LET" you.

Your buddy needs YOU to talk to his wife for him and you agree to do it.

Your friends feel a need to tattle back to you when this woman vents about being excluded.

This is all starting to have a very 10th grade feel to it.

Grown people get to make their own choices. You made yours, they made theirs, why does this require ongoing drama?


----------



## The4OfUs (May 23, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Any time you send an invitation that excludes family members, you risk getting turned down by the entire family. If they don't want to be divided on your terms, even for an afternoon, that's absolutely their prerogative. The wife won't come without the baby. That's her prerogative, and the details of her feeding, childcare, etc. arrangements are none of your business. She hasn't got to justify it to you. The husband isn't coming without the wife. Even if she has no good reason (and she probably does) and she really is a controlling shrew (we have no reason to think that she is, other than that you, a man with no experience of marriage, have chosen to put that spin on it), that's STILL none of your business. You don't get to pry into other people's relationships to try to persuade them to put you above their own spouse, even for an afternoon.

Between that, and the thing with the in-laws and their money, I think you have a lot to learn about marriage.

Let me break it down for you:

Wife trumps buddies.

Baby trumps buddies.

Wife plus baby, vs. buddies? Fuggedaboutit.

Husband trumps parents AND their precious money. (I'm sorry, in what book of high class English etiquette is it written that they get to be vulgarly controlling?) You got yourself a ticking time bomb, right there. Good luck.


Word.


----------



## Daphneduck (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HappyMommy2* 
Part of being a bride is getting the wedding you want.

Part of being a mama is missing some weddings and other functions because of your children.

As a personal philosophy, I agree with this. But, why make an issue over this situation, OP? If he doesn't come, you will still have a great time and probably not even miss him. There is a lot going on at a wedding, especially if it's yours. I had a child free wedding and loved it, but clearly they aren't for everyone and some people will be silly and mean about it, there is no need to be silly and mean back. You, as the bride, are entitled to plan your wedding however you want, but the members of the wedding party are not here on the planet solely to participate in your wedding; they have lives, too. If doesn't work for them, it doesn't work.








If it were me, and it was doable, I would encourage my DH to go and have fun. If it were a bad time for him to be away, for whatever reason, I'd ask him to bow out and I'm sure that he would do it. We wouldn't owe anyone an explanation. Who knows why his wife might not want him to go, thats their business. That's the way marriage works, as you'll see in time.


----------



## Kappa (Oct 15, 2007)

My husband's friend had a baby-free wedding and we decided it wasn't worth the hassle to attend. DH didn't want to go alone, and neither of us were interested in getting a sitter. He told my husband that he wished we had come, and that others brought their kids anyway, and it just wasn't a big deal. He said his wife only noticed when they posted the photos. She was upset her wishes weren't respected, but this was after the fact.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

For the confusion i meant godchildren! i do not have kids yet!

Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning, it took 45 minutes as she just didn't understand it. Some of you are right it is wrong that i should call her but then she was and still is unable to be reasoned with so that is the way it's going to be.

Ok i had a choice to go along with their request or to go along with their request. In every other aspect of the planning they have not made any rules this is it so really are they they bad i think not. Most people have a limit on numbers, married or engaged couples only etc etc...i genuinely think we have been very lucky in what we have been allowed to do. No amount of discussion on the choice issue is going to change that.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Count me among those who wonder how it took you 45 minutes to explain your reasons if "in laws and traditional etiquette" are the only reasons you've got. Especially since it sounds like you don't even understand the reasons behind the etiquette in question.

The babes-in-arms exception is standard practice, even in the most formal venues, due to the nature of the various stages of child development. I have a three year old right now that I can't even go into McDonald's with because of her rambunctiousness; but when she was six months old or so, I dined quite comfortably with her in some of my city's finest establishments, and nobody raised an eyebrow. Furthermore, the extreme dependency of an infant means that *there can be no social expectation on the mother to leave it for any length of time.* The fact that other mothers are willing to leave their babies - or even the fact that the mother herself, on her own initiative, does so in other situations - *does not license the inviter to demand that she do so for their particular event*. That would be an invasion of privacy and of their right to make their own family arrangements. (Let alone 45 minute phone calls to underscore the demand!)

In a nutshell: by disinviting the baby, you *explicitly* disinvited the mother herself, even if you yourself were too ignorant of etiquette to realize it at the time. That's just how the rules of etiquette around babes-in-arms work. And needless to say, to invite one member of a married couple but not the other is just about the rudest thing you can do - in most circles, quite enough to end a friendship.

IOW you had already completely stepped in it even _before_ you went for the gold medal in tackiness and inconsideration by getting on the phone to have it out with her. And all in the name of "etiquette"! Priceless.







:

Look... presumably you came to our community to get our perspective. Ask an honest question, get an honest answer. If you feel you're getting slammed, it's only because from our perspective, you are truly out of line. You seem to have wanted us to say "oh yeah, I would never do that! our husbands do as they please! she must be some kind of shrew" and you are, somewhat understandably, frustrated to hear very much the opposite.

Also bear in mind that besides being mothers, most of us are further along in the life cycle than you, and much more familiar with how these things work in general even aside from a mother's particular perspective. Indeed, many of us are closer to being the ones hosting the major family events (if not quite weddings, at least bar mitzvahs and confirmations, major holiday gatherings, etc.) than to being the young people for whom they're hosted. This may be part of why we are so unsympathetic to the appeals to your in-laws' supposed authority - as parents, we know firsthand just what kind of unsavory attitude it takes to set such arbitrary limits, and you don't look very big for going along with it. Of course, it's your own choice not to cross them if you don't want to. But you have to take responsibility for that choice, and not spread the burden of it onto third parties. "I'd love to have you, but her parents are calling the shots" won't buy you any sympathy, and not coincidentally, it also violates etiquette by airing dirty laundry. You can't have it both ways; if you're going to follow your in-laws' rules of "etiquette" (which, as I've noted, differ substantially from standard formal etiquette), then your friend and his wife are more than entitled to follow the rule of standard etiquette which is that they are under no obligation to accept exclusionary invitations.

Etiquette is supposed to be about helping people relate to each other _more_ comfortably, you know.


----------



## roxyrox (Sep 11, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
For the confusion i meant godchildren! i do not have kids yet!

Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning, it took 45 minutes as she just didn't understand it. Some of you are right it is wrong that i should call her but then she was and still is unable to be reasoned with so that is the way it's going to be.

Ok i had a choice to go along with their request or to go along with their request. In every other aspect of the planning they have not made any rules this is it so really are they they bad i think not. Most people have a limit on numbers, married or engaged couples only etc etc*...i genuinely think we have been very lucky in what we have been allowed to do.* No amount of discussion on the choice issue is going to change that.

The bit I bolded seems really odd to me. You feel lucky you have been "allowed" do do things for your own wedding? You don't think it is you and your partner who should be "allowing" things?

This whole situation seems a bit strange.

You are right, most people getting married have limits on things, but they are generally limits imposed by _them_. And that is entirely their perogative; everyone should have the wedding they wish.

In your case, it sounds like you are having the wedding your future in laws wish, when really it shouldn't be about them at all.


----------



## Daphneduck (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Count me among those who wonder how it took you 45 minutes to explain your reasons if "in laws and traditional etiquette" are the only reasons you've got. Especially since it sounds like you don't even understand the reasons behind the etiquette in question.

The babes-in-arms exception is standard practice, even in the most formal venues, due to the nature of the various stages of child development. I have a three year old right now that I can't even go into McDonald's with because of her rambunctiousness; but when she was six months old or so, I dined quite comfortably with her in some of my city's finest establishments, and nobody raised an eyebrow. Furthermore, the extreme dependency of an infant means that *there can be no social expectation on the mother to leave it for any length of time.* The fact that other mothers are willing to leave their babies - or even the fact that the mother herself, on her own initiative, does so in other situations - *does not license the inviter to demand that she do so for their particular event*. That would be an invasion of privacy and of their right to make their own family arrangements. (Let alone 45 minute phone calls to underscore the demand!)

In a nutshell: by disinviting the baby, you *explicitly* disinvited the mother herself, even if you yourself were too ignorant of etiquette to realize it at the time. That's just how the rules of etiquette around babes-in-arms work. And needless to say, to invite one member of a married couple but not the other is just about the rudest thing you can do - in most circles, quite enough to end a friendship.

IOW you had already completely stepped in it even _before_ you went for the gold medal in tackiness and inconsideration by getting on the phone to have it out with her. And all in the name of "etiquette"! Priceless.







:

Look... presumably you came to our community to get our perspective. Ask an honest question, get an honest answer. If you feel you're getting slammed, it's only because from our perspective, you are truly out of line. You seem to have wanted us to say "oh yeah, I would never do that! our husbands do as they please! she must be some kind of shrew" and you are, somewhat understandably, frustrated to hear very much the opposite.

Also bear in mind that besides being mothers, most of us are further along in the life cycle than you, and much more familiar with how these things work in general even aside from a mother's particular perspective. Indeed, many of us are closer to being the ones hosting the major family events (if not quite weddings, at least bar mitzvahs and confirmations, major holiday gatherings, etc.) than to being the young people for whom they're hosted. This may be part of why we are so unsympathetic to the appeals to your in-laws' supposed authority - as parents, we know firsthand just what kind of unsavory attitude it takes to set such arbitrary limits, and you don't look very big for going along with it. Of course, it's your own choice not to cross them if you don't want to. But you have to take responsibility for that choice, and not spread the burden of it onto third parties. "I'd love to have you, but her parents are calling the shots" won't buy you any sympathy, and not coincidentally, it also violates etiquette by airing dirty laundry. You can't have it both ways; if you're going to follow your in-laws' rules of "etiquette" (which, as I've noted, differ substantially from standard formal etiquette), then your friend and his wife are more than entitled to follow the rule of standard etiquette which is that they are under no obligation to accept exclusionary invitations.

Etiquette is supposed to be about helping people relate to each other _more_ comfortably, you know.

This is one of the rudest posts that I have ever read. This is similiar to swatting a fly with an ax. Hardly a shining example of etiquette.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 

Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning

What reasoning is that, exactly? So far we haven't heard any reasons, just "that's the way it is, period."

Of course she was hurt, you sent an invitation to her family saying "this one, but not that one." And you got between her and her husband. If her husband wants to be so hurtful as to disregard her wishes, that's between him and her. Granted you already kind of set the situation up, but the last thing you need to be doing is slogging back into it, pressuring him to disregard her, or pressuring her to acquiesce in taking back seat to a buddy at a precious and sensitive time in their family life. If he's low enough to say "see ya honey, I'll be at the wedding! have fun with the diapers!" that's bad enough. But to try to convince her to be happy about it, and that she doesn't have the right to expect any better? Come on, now.

This is an usher - not your best man, not even one of the groomsmen. He's not big enough a deal to you to be more than an usher, or to cross your future in-laws over, but you're supposed to be important enough to him to cross his actual wife over?

You say she's the one who doesn't understand?


----------



## MadameXCupcake (Dec 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daphneduck* 
This is one of the rudest posts that I have ever read. This is similiar to swatting a fly with an ax. Hardly a shining example of etiquette.

Huh, Really?
I didn't think it was rude, truthful yes but not really rude.


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Daphneduck, the etiquette of internet discussion and that of wedding invitations are very different. hammieg came on here inviting us to consider the proposition that his friend's wife's feelings aren't worth a damn, and that there is no limit on his right to hurt them and to incite her own husband to do the same. The argument against this obviously bogus proposition has proceeded as it deserves.


----------



## Daphneduck (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MadameXCupcake* 
Huh, Really?
I didn't think it was rude, truthful yes but not really rude.

Well, I did.


----------



## Daphneduck (Jan 22, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
Daphneduck, the etiquette of internet discussion and that of wedding invitations are very different. hammieg came on here inviting us to consider the proposition that his friend's wife's feelings aren't worth a damn, and that there is no limit on his right to hurt them and to incite her own husband to do the same. The argument against this obviously bogus proposition has proceeded as it deserves.


----------



## MadameXCupcake (Dec 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GalateaDunkel* 
This is an usher - not your best man, not even one of the groomsmen. He's not big enough a deal to you to be more than an usher, or to cross your future in-laws over, but you're supposed to be important enough to him to cross his actual wife over?

You say she's the one who doesn't understand?

This is what I have been wondering the last three days while I watched this thread..
Why the fuss? He's not a good enough friend to be in the wedding party but you've turned it into such a big deal that he declined your invitation.

You seem quite young and things will change after you've been married a year or two. You're going to remember this one day and probably think it was pretty silly.


----------



## MadameXCupcake (Dec 14, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Daphneduck* 
Well, I did.

Okay


----------



## rhiandmoi (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
Also once and for all finally i have never tried to convince her to come, she was hurt so as a nice person i took the time to explain the reasoning, it took 45 minutes as she just didn't understand it. Some of you are right it is wrong that i should call her but then she was and still is unable to be reasoned with so that is the way it's going to be.

She doesn't need to be reasoned with. She has made her decision. The only person that should even be attempting to reason with her is her husband and he never should have asked you to call her. In the future, it is advisable not to do things like this. On any issue. He can present you as "evidence" but you should not advocate to his wife on his behalf for anything. Imagine how your beloved would feel if he called her to advocate on your behalf.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

In englang it's do different...it goes groom, best man, ushers so he is in the wedding party as you call it...we do not have grooms men.

i think this will be my last message as some people are just pinning me against a wall now.

thanks for all the helpful advice.


----------



## hammieg (May 21, 2009)

I did come on here to get an opinion of course....i have not once said i haven't taken on board that it is her prerogative to decline the invite and take her husband with her...i hear that and accept it and some of the other faults i might have...this is what i came on here to understand rather than having it out with them which is what some of you seem to keep thinking i have done...some of you who attack me have clearly not read all my replies as you continue down the same line, surely it's best to get you facts straight and not fly off the handle.


----------



## vegemamato (Jul 4, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
In englang it's do different...it goes groom, best man, ushers so he is in the wedding party as you call it...we do not have grooms men.

i think this will be my last message as some people are just pinning me against a wall now.

thanks for all the helpful advice.

Good luck with the wedding! I'm sorry that you felt so attacked here- these discussions can become quite heated


----------



## GalateaDunkel (Jul 22, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hammieg* 
I did come on here to get an opinion of course....i have not once said i haven't taken on board that it is her prerogative to decline the invite and take her husband with her...i hear that and accept it and some of the other faults i might have...this is what i came on here to understand rather than having it out with them which is what some of you seem to keep thinking i have done...some of you who attack me have clearly not read all my replies as you continue down the same line, surely it's best to get you facts straight and not fly off the handle.

Well, live and learn. It is what it is. I'm sure you'll have a fine wedding anyway.

What I don't quite get is what it is you're even trying to convince her of. You said it wasn't to convince her to leave her baby and come. So... to "let" her husband come? But that's between them, and now I think you probably realize that you should have told him as much. But else... what? She hasn't got to like your reasons, and as I said, it's somewhat insulting to tell her that she should. And it's never been clear what your reasons are. If we've misunderstood, it may be partly because you've described things vaguely - except that you clearly think she's a very unreasonable person, and of course as fellow mothers we strongly suspect that that's not quite fair.


----------



## Equuskia (Dec 16, 2006)

Closing this thread as it has run its course.


----------

