No Kids?

photokitty

Have you had to tell anyone else no kids are invited? If you have not told anyone else that your are not inviting kids then it is really up to you. You can invite this baby and only this baby if you want to. If you don't want to apologize for any confusion, and tell her you are sorry but only she and her spouse are invited.

If you invite the baby and others try to rsvp for their kids be careful not to use the "we are only inviting adults" excuse. You can pick and choose which kids to invite or no invite. But it might hurt feelings. But if no one asks if they can also bring their kinds, then I don't see how they could be offended.

aurianna

Jen4948 said:

Sorry, but I don't agree.  This is a woman who has already been rude by attaching an inappropriate demand that her kid be automatically invited.  So the correct etiquette is not "obvious" to her and just leaving her alone to figure it out isn't working.  She needs to understand that it's not okay for her to set the terms on which her kid is invited.  If her kid is disruptive and she does nothing, it has to be made clear to her that sitting on her butt while it cries is not okay.

Um... I don't think we have enough info to know that she demanded her child be invited. If invites haven't gone out and it's not widespread knowledge that it's an adult event, then it's very possible she was just excited about the wedding and the baby meeting relatives that she said she'd bring him as an off-handed comment. If she's accustomed to weddings with children and already assumed children were invited, she could have been letting OP know her baby was coming early as a courtesy, not a malicious demand. Not saying that is right; it's not.
The OP would need to clarify how it was said: a casual comment said by someone who didn't know the wedding was adults only, or a demand from someone that already knew the plan was for it to be adults only.

But even if it is the latter... Telling a guest how to parent and act at your ceremony is rude. Two wrongs don't make a right. Better to not invite the child at all.
And if she really was demanding and rude, who's to say she'd listen to the instructions anyway? Or that she wouldn't be insulted by the condescending instructions and wouldn't purposely act out even more.

OP, either invite the baby without special conditions. Or don't invite him/her.
An invite is a welcome to guests to honor you with their presence at your wedding. Adding stipulations/conditions/parenting advice no longer makes it an honor. Don't do it.


ETA:
I'm not trying to poopoo on anyone for not wanting kids or for making them feel bad about not liking their situation. I had an adult only wedding myself, and I had to make some uncomfortable phone calls to the people that wrote their children in on the invite. But it's the host's responsibility to treat her guests with respect, and giving a guest demands on anything (what clothes to wear, what gifts to bring, or how to parent/behave, etc) is not something a kind, proper host does.

Jen4948

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

Sorry, but I don't agree.  This is a woman who has already been rude by attaching an inappropriate demand that her kid be automatically invited.  So the correct etiquette is not "obvious" to her and just leaving her alone to figure it out isn't working.  She needs to understand that it's not okay for her to set the terms on which her kid is invited.  If her kid is disruptive and she does nothing, it has to be made clear to her that sitting on her butt while it cries is not okay.

Um... I don't think we have enough info to know that she demanded her child be invited. If invites haven't gone out and it's not widespread knowledge that it's an adult event, then it's very possible she was just excited about the wedding and the baby meeting relatives that she said she'd bring him as an off-handed comment. If she's accustomed to weddings with children and already assumed children were invited, she could have been letting OP know her baby was coming early as a courtesy, not a malicious demand. Not saying that is right; it's not.
The OP would need to clarify how it was said: a casual comment said by someone who didn't know the wedding was adults only, or a demand from someone that already knew the plan was for it to be adults only.

But even if it is the latter... Telling a guest how to parent and act at your ceremony is rude. Two wrongs don't make a right. Better to not invite the child at all.
And if she really was demanding and rude, who's to say she'd listen to the instructions anyway? Or that she wouldn't be insulted by the condescending instructions and wouldn't purposely act out even more.

OP, either invite the baby without special conditions. Or don't invite him/her.
An invite is a welcome to guests to honor you with their presence at your wedding. Adding stipulations/conditions/parenting advice no longer makes it an honor. Don't do it.


ETA:
I'm not trying to poopoo on anyone for not wanting kids or for making them feel bad about not liking their situation. I had an adult only wedding myself, and I had to make some uncomfortable phone calls to the people that wrote their children in on the invite. But it's the host's responsibility to treat her guests with respect, and giving a guest demands on anything (what clothes to wear, what gifts to bring, or how to parent/behave, etc) is not something a kind, proper host does.

Per the OP, she said she planned to come and bring her baby.  It's not even a "demand" - it's a statement of what she intends to do, whether or not her baby is invited.  And it's still rude.  I don't think semantics make a difference-she is not entitled to bring her baby just because the baby is a baby.  And I don't think someone who would do that understands that no, her baby cannot be allowed to just cry, spit up, stink up its diapers, or otherwise be disruptive while she just sits there-she has to take it away and take care of it.

As for telling the cousin that she has to take the baby out, that's if the baby does cry or otherwise disrupt the ceremony-not in advance.  And that is something a "proper host" does, because she owes it to everyone else at the wedding that it is not disrupted.

Viczaesar

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

karamekler said:

I agree they do get noticed if they are crying during a ceremony, I also feel as if we do not go along with this that we will get a lot of backlash from his family. It is tough

Yeah, that is tough.  I sympathize.

By way of compromise, you could bend the "adults-only" rule for her, but insist that if the baby cries or is otherwise disruptive in any way, s/he must be removed immediately-the cousin and her SO cannot simply sit there and ignore it.  This is obviously what any parent of a disruptive child at a wedding should do, but I think that someone who simply assumes without confirmation that their baby is invited even when you haven't so indicated needs to have this reinforced.

No no no no. Do not say this to her. That's so insulting.
As said, it's obvious to most parents that this is what should be done, so to demand this of her to her face and act like she needs special instruction to do so, is demeaning.

This is how this conversation will come off:

"Dear welcome guest: I don't want people's brats at my wedding. However I am going to be super magnanimous and praise worthy, and grant you the special privilege of allowing your spawn at my event.
HOWEVER there is a list of demands you must follow. I am sure your child will be ill-behaved and dare to scream on MY day. I am also sure that you will be too stupid, rude, or both, to remove it (because seriously, why would a mother bother to care for her crying infant when she could just sit there and watch me in my white gown being beautiful?).
Be warned, if you do not follow my demands you will be punished. I'm not sure by who, because it's not like I'm going to stomp down the aisle in the middle of the ceremony to shun you (assuming I even notice the crying). But you'll be sorry!!"

Jen4948 usually gives good advice, but not this.

Not inviting the kid at all is not rude.
Inviting the kid, but attaching a list of demands / some sort of ultimatum, is totally rude.

Sorry, but I don't agree.  This is a woman who has already been rude by attaching an inappropriate demand that her kid be automatically invited.  So the correct etiquette is not "obvious" to her and just leaving her alone to figure it out isn't working.  She needs to understand that it's not okay for her to set the terms on which her kid is invited.  If her kid is disruptive and she does nothing, it has to be made clear to her that sitting on her butt while it cries is not okay.

I disagree with you.  One person's rudeness (and frankly I disagree that someone assuming that their child is invited is necessarily rude) does not make a rude response okay.

Viczaesar

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

Sorry, but I don't agree.  This is a woman who has already been rude by attaching an inappropriate demand that her kid be automatically invited.  So the correct etiquette is not "obvious" to her and just leaving her alone to figure it out isn't working.  She needs to understand that it's not okay for her to set the terms on which her kid is invited.  If her kid is disruptive and she does nothing, it has to be made clear to her that sitting on her butt while it cries is not okay.

Um... I don't think we have enough info to know that she demanded her child be invited. If invites haven't gone out and it's not widespread knowledge that it's an adult event, then it's very possible she was just excited about the wedding and the baby meeting relatives that she said she'd bring him as an off-handed comment. If she's accustomed to weddings with children and already assumed children were invited, she could have been letting OP know her baby was coming early as a courtesy, not a malicious demand. Not saying that is right; it's not.
The OP would need to clarify how it was said: a casual comment said by someone who didn't know the wedding was adults only, or a demand from someone that already knew the plan was for it to be adults only.

But even if it is the latter... Telling a guest how to parent and act at your ceremony is rude. Two wrongs don't make a right. Better to not invite the child at all.
And if she really was demanding and rude, who's to say she'd listen to the instructions anyway? Or that she wouldn't be insulted by the condescending instructions and wouldn't purposely act out even more.

OP, either invite the baby without special conditions. Or don't invite him/her.
An invite is a welcome to guests to honor you with their presence at your wedding. Adding stipulations/conditions/parenting advice no longer makes it an honor. Don't do it.


ETA:
I'm not trying to poopoo on anyone for not wanting kids or for making them feel bad about not liking their situation. I had an adult only wedding myself, and I had to make some uncomfortable phone calls to the people that wrote their children in on the invite. But it's the host's responsibility to treat her guests with respect, and giving a guest demands on anything (what clothes to wear, what gifts to bring, or how to parent/behave, etc) is not something a kind, proper host does.

Per the OP, she said she planned to come and bring her baby.  It's not even a "demand" - it's a statement of what she intends to do, whether or not her baby is invited.  And it's still rude.  I don't think semantics make a difference-she is not entitled to bring her baby just because the baby is a baby.  And I don't think someone who would do that understands that no, her baby cannot be allowed to just cry, spit up, stink up its diapers, or otherwise be disruptive while she just sits there-she has to take it away and take care of it.

As for telling the cousin that she has to take the baby out, that's if the baby does cry or otherwise disrupt the ceremony-not in advance.  And that is something a "proper host" does, because she owes it to everyone else at the wedding that it is not disrupted.

No, a proper host does not act like her guests are too stupid to figure out how to behave properly during the ceremony.  Just like you can't assume your guests are too stupid to figure out how to dress themselves properly for your wedding, you can't assume that your guests are too stupid to take their child out of the room if it starts crying.

Jen4948

Viczaesar said:

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

Sorry, but I don't agree.  This is a woman who has already been rude by attaching an inappropriate demand that her kid be automatically invited.  So the correct etiquette is not "obvious" to her and just leaving her alone to figure it out isn't working.  She needs to understand that it's not okay for her to set the terms on which her kid is invited.  If her kid is disruptive and she does nothing, it has to be made clear to her that sitting on her butt while it cries is not okay.

Um... I don't think we have enough info to know that she demanded her child be invited. If invites haven't gone out and it's not widespread knowledge that it's an adult event, then it's very possible she was just excited about the wedding and the baby meeting relatives that she said she'd bring him as an off-handed comment. If she's accustomed to weddings with children and already assumed children were invited, she could have been letting OP know her baby was coming early as a courtesy, not a malicious demand. Not saying that is right; it's not.
The OP would need to clarify how it was said: a casual comment said by someone who didn't know the wedding was adults only, or a demand from someone that already knew the plan was for it to be adults only.

But even if it is the latter... Telling a guest how to parent and act at your ceremony is rude. Two wrongs don't make a right. Better to not invite the child at all.
And if she really was demanding and rude, who's to say she'd listen to the instructions anyway? Or that she wouldn't be insulted by the condescending instructions and wouldn't purposely act out even more.

OP, either invite the baby without special conditions. Or don't invite him/her.
An invite is a welcome to guests to honor you with their presence at your wedding. Adding stipulations/conditions/parenting advice no longer makes it an honor. Don't do it.


ETA:
I'm not trying to poopoo on anyone for not wanting kids or for making them feel bad about not liking their situation. I had an adult only wedding myself, and I had to make some uncomfortable phone calls to the people that wrote their children in on the invite. But it's the host's responsibility to treat her guests with respect, and giving a guest demands on anything (what clothes to wear, what gifts to bring, or how to parent/behave, etc) is not something a kind, proper host does.

Per the OP, she said she planned to come and bring her baby.  It's not even a "demand" - it's a statement of what she intends to do, whether or not her baby is invited.  And it's still rude.  I don't think semantics make a difference-she is not entitled to bring her baby just because the baby is a baby.  And I don't think someone who would do that understands that no, her baby cannot be allowed to just cry, spit up, stink up its diapers, or otherwise be disruptive while she just sits there-she has to take it away and take care of it.

As for telling the cousin that she has to take the baby out, that's if the baby does cry or otherwise disrupt the ceremony-not in advance.  And that is something a "proper host" does, because she owes it to everyone else at the wedding that it is not disrupted.

No, a proper host does not act like her guests are too stupid to figure out how to behave properly during the ceremony.  Just like you can't assume your guests are too stupid to figure out how to dress themselves properly for your wedding, you can't assume that your guests are too stupid to take their child out of the room if it starts crying.

This particular guest does act too stupid to figure it out, considering she assumed that her kid was invited when it was not.  And it is incredibly rude of a guest to just sit there and let her baby cry.  If she doesn't get up and take it out of the room, someone has to tell her to do so-because by just sitting there she is being stupid.

Viczaesar

It does not matter whether or not she actually is too stupid (about which I also disagree with you), it still does not make it okay to treat her like she is that stupid.  Treating your guests like they're idiots is not part of being a good host.

ktjanesmom

How old is this baby going to be at the time of the wedding?  Some new moms wont leave their new borns for too many hours.  Perhaps she will be breast feeding.  Will it really matter if the baby is there?  Its not like it will be costing you anything.  Aside from the concern about a crying baby during your ceremony, I dont see a problem with letting her bring the baby.  Gosh people!

Jen4948

ktjanesmom said:

How old is this baby going to be at the time of the wedding?  Some new moms wont leave their new borns for too many hours.  Perhaps she will be breast feeding.  Will it really matter if the baby is there?  Its not like it will be costing you anything.  Aside from the concern about a crying baby during your ceremony, I dont see a problem with letting her bring the baby.  Gosh people!

And what about everyone else who was told no children and took the OP and her FI at the word, who then find babysitters for their children, and show up to find that a baby is present and get pissed off?  Maybe their babies are newborns too.  Gosh, ktjanesmom!

Viczaesar

Nobody else has to be told that the wedding is no children.  They just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children.

Jen4948

Viczaesar said:

Nobody else has to be told that the wedding is no children.  They just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children.

Unfortunately, with this particular woman, it seems that "just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children" doesn't make it clear enough that her kid is not invited, because she announced that she plans to bring him/her anyway, even if the invitation doesn't include the baby's name.

Viczaesar

Jen4948 said:

Viczaesar said:

Nobody else has to be told that the wedding is no children.  They just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children.

Unfortunately, with this particular woman, it seems that "just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children" doesn't make it clear enough that her kid is not invited, because she announced that she plans to bring him/her anyway, even if the invitation doesn't include the baby's name.

I'm not talking about her, I'm talking about the other guests.  And again, I disagree with your assessment of the woman's actions and character.

NYCBruin

Viczaesar said:

Nobody else has to be told that the wedding is no children.  They just need to be given invitations that don't invite their children.

This x100000

I don't understand all the "well other guests are going to be upset that there was an exception to the rule."  If you follow proper etiquette, no one should even be aware of the no kids "rule."

And I'm also totally with you on the two wrongs don't make a right.  Even if this woman was a complete idiot (which I don't think she is), it still wouldn't justify the OP telling her how to parent.  It's no different than the brides who come on here trying to justify putting a dress code on someone's invitation because they will wear jeans.

RebeccaB88

Viczaesar said:

 No, a proper host does not act like her guests are too stupid to figure out how to behave properly during the ceremony.  Just like you can't assume your guests are too stupid to figure out how to dress themselves properly for your wedding, you can't assume that your guests are too stupid to take their child out of the room if it starts crying.

I have never attended a wedding or event where the parent of a crying baby/child has taken the child out of the event. Not one that I can ever remember, at least. Last wedding I attended a baby started wailing at the exact moment the organ started for the processional and didn't stop until the bride and groom walked back up the aisle. Mom and dad were planted firmly in their seats the whole time. So, while we'd like to expect that people will know what to do, my experience is that we can't expect them to know, and if they do, that they will actually do it.  Very, very sad, but it's my experience. And it's why my family doesn't invite any kids to weddings as guests anymore.

mmm4763

ktjanesmom said:

How old is this baby going to be at the time of the wedding?  Some new moms wont leave their new borns for too many hours.  Perhaps she will be breast feeding.  Will it really matter if the baby is there?  Its not like it will be costing you anything.  Aside from the concern about a crying baby during your ceremony, I dont see a problem with letting her bring the baby.  Gosh people!

The decision not to have children often has nothing to do with cost (especially when we are talking about infants/toddlers). It's often about wanting to have an adult event where adults can be adults and not have to worry about entertaining/coddling a young child who understandably cannot control their wants/needs/behaviors.

I'm personally having what amounts to a 25 person dinner party in a very intimate space from 6-10pm and I don't want my 15 month old future niece there because more often than not she is whiny/fussy and would likely be very disruptive at an event of this size/format. 

And a crying baby at a ceremony is actually a concern of many people because really at that point what do you think people are paying attention to? And I know many parents are wonderful but in the examples brought up in this post it's not a guarantee that the child's parent would be smart enough to leave with the crying child..these parents/mothers have obviously ignored all other previous (unspoken) requests not to bring the child so why would we think they would suddenly clue into appropriate behavior?

(I'm not an advocate for telling someone how to behave, I'm in the "do not invite at all" camp but really just wanting to explain that it's not always about money)

Viczaesar

RebeccaB88 said:

Viczaesar said:

 No, a proper host does not act like her guests are too stupid to figure out how to behave properly during the ceremony.  Just like you can't assume your guests are too stupid to figure out how to dress themselves properly for your wedding, you can't assume that your guests are too stupid to take their child out of the room if it starts crying.

I have never attended a wedding or event where the parent of a crying baby/child has taken the child out of the event. Not one that I can ever remember, at least. Last wedding I attended a baby started wailing at the exact moment the organ started for the processional and didn't stop until the bride and groom walked back up the aisle. Mom and dad were planted firmly in their seats the whole time. So, while we'd like to expect that people will know what to do, my experience is that we can't expect them to know, and if they do, that they will actually do it.  Very, very sad, but it's my experience. And it's why my family doesn't invite any kids to weddings as guests anymore.

I've never been to a wedding or an event where a parent (or other family member) hasn't taken a crying child out of the room.  My family always invites kids to weddings. 

Regardless, it's rude to treat your guests as though they have the manners of a housefly. 

artbyallie

FWIW, apparently a baby cried at our wedding. H and I never knew it until we were told afterward.

That said, it is still okay to tell the guest that no, she won't be bringing her infant because the baby is not invited. If that means the guest won't be coming at all, so be it.

southernbelle0915

I agree with @aurianna and @Viczeasar - I think it's rude to proactively say to a guest "if you're going to bring your baby, you need to remove the child if/when it cries. I'm telling you this now because I don't think you are smart/polite enough to do this without being told..." In the same way I think it's rude to tell guests "I don't think you know how to dress for weddings, so let me tell you what to wear...." 

Coming from someone who had a kid free wedding partially for space reasons, but mostly because I can't stand the sound of crying children and get annoyed with kids at weddings.... I think the proper way to handle this from an etiquette perspective is to either A) invite ONLY the cousin to eliminate the possibility of a child crying during the event, or invite the cousin and realize the risk that thebaby might cry at the ceremony. If OP truly doesn't believe that the cousin would remove the fussing child, I think option A is the only way to go. I don't think it's ok to pick option B and then rudely try to mitigate in the ways suggested.

ETF: spelling

KickAssMOH

My friend brought a newborn to my kid-free wedding and set him up in a pack-and-play in our hospitality suite. She, her husband, and her parents took turns ducking out of the wedding to be with the baby. I found this to be preferable to running the risk of a baby making noises during my ceremony.

aurianna

Jen4948 said:

This particular guest does act too stupid to figure it out, considering she assumed that her kid was invited when it was not.  And it is incredibly rude of a guest to just sit there and let her baby cry.  If she doesn't get up and take it out of the room, someone has to tell her to do so-because by just sitting there she is being stupid.

Geeez. I need to pull out the Jump-to-Conclusions mat.

OP said: "she told my FI that she was going to come to the wedding with the baby ( now she does not know we are not having kids)"

Is it incorrect to assume your children (or even you yourself) will be invited to an event? Yes. I'm not arguing with you here.
But is supposing your newborn baby will most likely be invited to a wedding (one where the bride and groom have several nephews, and in a family where maybe adult-only weddings are not the norm) make you stupid and/or horribly rude in every other aspect of your conduct? Not necessarily.

With just one sentence about this woman you are making the assumption that she is a stupid hick that's going to pick her toes with the silverware and use the bride's wedding veil as a diaper for her screaming baby.

There are dozens of benign reasons this woman could have had the impression that her child would probably be invited which aren't related to her being stupid and/or incredibly rude in general. So she figured her kid would be invited for whatever reason. She was giving the couple an early-RSVP, quite possibly for the convenience of the couple. You can not automatically conclude that this woman is a troll. And because of that, you can't give the OP advice to treat her guest like a troll.

OP, you know this woman better than us. If you think she's stupid and rude and was honestly giving you a demand rather than its being an honest mistake, then use your best judgement (which hopefully is to still treat her like an honored guest). But if you think there's a chance that this was a simple misunderstanding, please do not do her any "favors" by allowing her to bring her spawn to the wedding with conditions and special parenting instructions.

Jen4948

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

This particular guest does act too stupid to figure it out, considering she assumed that her kid was invited when it was not.  And it is incredibly rude of a guest to just sit there and let her baby cry.  If she doesn't get up and take it out of the room, someone has to tell her to do so-because by just sitting there she is being stupid.

Geeez. I need to pull out the Jump-to-Conclusions mat.

OP said: "she told my FI that she was going to come to the wedding with the baby ( now she does not know we are not having kids)"

Is it incorrect to assume your children (or even you yourself) will be invited to an event? Yes. I'm not arguing with you here.
But is supposing your newborn baby will most likely be invited to a wedding (one where the bride and groom have several nephews, and in a family where maybe adult-only weddings are not the norm) make you stupid and/or horribly rude in ever other aspect of your conduct? Not necessarily.

With just one sentence about this woman you are making the assumption that she is a stupid hick that's going to pick her toes with the silverware and use the bride's wedding veil as a diaper for her screaming baby.

There are dozens of benign reasons this woman could have had the impression that her child would probably be invited which aren't related to her being stupid and/or incredibly rude in general. So she figured her kid would be invited for whatever reason. She was giving the couple an early-RSVP, quite possibly for the convenience of the couple. You can not automatically conclude that this woman is a troll. And because of that, you can't give the OP advice to treat her guest like a troll.

OP, you know this woman better than us. If you think she's stupid and rude and was honestly giving you a demand rather than its being an honest mistake, then use your best judgement (which hopefully is to still treat her like an honored guest). But if you think there's a chance that this was a simple misunderstanding, please do not do her any "favors" by allowing her to bring her spawn to the wedding with conditions and special parenting instructions.

Sorry, but I'm not going to agree with you.  It is not polite to assume that if one's child is not listed on an invitation (presumably because it's still unborn), it is invited just the same.

Your logic would suggest that everyone should know that only those persons listed are invited; unfortunately, to automatically assume that one's unborn child is invited goes against this logic.

I am not declaring this woman a "witch" or a "hick."  I am declaring her ignorant or uncaring about correct etiquette, and I think it needs to be made clear to her that she's incorrect.

My own actual advice is just to tell her that unfortunately, she made an error and only those persons listed on the invitation are invited, who do not include her unborn child.  I suggested that by way of compromise, she could bring her child but if it does start behaving disruptively she has to be told to take it out if she doesn't automatically do so.  So I'm willing to give her a chance to do that.  However, based on her thinking that the child is automatically invited when it isn't, I don't have reason to believe that she knows to take it out if it starts behaving disruptively-it depends on what she actually does.

Viczaesar

Jen4948 said:

aurianna said:

Jen4948 said:

This particular guest does act too stupid to figure it out, considering she assumed that her kid was invited when it was not.  And it is incredibly rude of a guest to just sit there and let her baby cry.  If she doesn't get up and take it out of the room, someone has to tell her to do so-because by just sitting there she is being stupid.

Geeez. I need to pull out the Jump-to-Conclusions mat.

OP said: "she told my FI that she was going to come to the wedding with the baby ( now she does not know we are not having kids)"

Is it incorrect to assume your children (or even you yourself) will be invited to an event? Yes. I'm not arguing with you here.
But is supposing your newborn baby will most likely be invited to a wedding (one where the bride and groom have several nephews, and in a family where maybe adult-only weddings are not the norm) make you stupid and/or horribly rude in ever other aspect of your conduct? Not necessarily.

With just one sentence about this woman you are making the assumption that she is a stupid hick that's going to pick her toes with the silverware and use the bride's wedding veil as a diaper for her screaming baby.

There are dozens of benign reasons this woman could have had the impression that her child would probably be invited which aren't related to her being stupid and/or incredibly rude in general. So she figured her kid would be invited for whatever reason. She was giving the couple an early-RSVP, quite possibly for the convenience of the couple. You can not automatically conclude that this woman is a troll. And because of that, you can't give the OP advice to treat her guest like a troll.

OP, you know this woman better than us. If you think she's stupid and rude and was honestly giving you a demand rather than its being an honest mistake, then use your best judgement (which hopefully is to still treat her like an honored guest). But if you think there's a chance that this was a simple misunderstanding, please do not do her any "favors" by allowing her to bring her spawn to the wedding with conditions and special parenting instructions.

Sorry, but I'm not going to agree with you.  It is not polite to assume that if one's child is not listed on an invitation (presumably because it's still unborn), it is invited just the same.

Your logic would suggest that everyone should know that only those persons listed are invited; unfortunately, to automatically assume that one's unborn child is invited goes against this logic.

I am not declaring this woman a "witch" or a "hick."  I am declaring her ignorant or uncaring about correct etiquette, and I think it needs to be made clear to her that she's incorrect.

My own actual advice is just to tell her that unfortunately, she made an error and only those persons listed on the invitation are invited, who do not include her unborn child.  I suggested that by way of compromise, she could bring her child but if it does start behaving disruptively she has to be told to take it out if she doesn't automatically do so.  So I'm willing to give her a chance to do that.  However, based on her thinking that the child is automatically invited when it isn't, I don't have reason to believe that she knows to take it out if it starts behaving disruptively-it depends on what she actually does.

Invitations haven't gone out yet.  Nobody is either listed or not listed on said invitation.  Jumping to conclusions indeed.

Jen4948

The one who jumped to conclusions is the cousin.

OP, if you don't want her to bring her baby, address the envelope only to the cousin and her SO.  If she asks about the baby, tell her the baby isn't invited.  Regardless of what your FMIL says, you are not required to include the baby just because the cousin wants to bring it.  If she doesn't want to get a sitter for it, she can decline the invitation for it.  You are not required to bend over backward for her or to bend the rules for her if you are not doing so for anyone else-newborn or no, FMIL or no.

Viczaesar

Jen4948 said:

The one who jumped to conclusions is the cousin.

OP, if you don't want her to bring her baby, address the envelope only to the cousin and her SO.  If she asks about the baby, tell her the baby isn't invited.  Regardless of what your FMIL says, you are not required to include the baby just because the cousin wants to bring it.  If she doesn't want to get a sitter for it, she can decline the invitation for it.  You are not required to bend over backward for her or to bend the rules for her if you are not doing so for anyone else-newborn or no, FMIL or no.

She's not the only one.

PrettyGirlLost

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

Jen4948

PrettyGirlLost said:

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

The name is Jen4948, and I have no such bias.

I think it's totally fine to invite children if one wants to, but if one doesn't want to, everyone else needs to abide by that wish and not put pressure on one to change one's mind/bend the rules.

PrettyGirlLost

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

The name is Jen4948, and I have no such bias.

I think it's totally fine to invite children if one wants to, but if one doesn't want to, everyone else needs to abide by that wish and not put pressure on one to change one's mind/bend the rules.

Really?  This is the 1st time you have ever stated this opinion.  Your prior posts make it sound like you vehemently oppose kids at weddings. . . which is fine.  It just seemed like a waste of time to try and argue with you over it.

I agree that it is rude to add kids on the invitations or try to guilt the couple into inviting them, but I also think exceptions can be made if the couple wants to.

Jen4948

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

The name is Jen4948, and I have no such bias.

I think it's totally fine to invite children if one wants to, but if one doesn't want to, everyone else needs to abide by that wish and not put pressure on one to change one's mind/bend the rules.

Really?  This is the 1st time you have ever stated this opinion.  Your prior posts make it sound like you vehemently oppose kids at weddings. . . which is fine.  It just seemed like a waste of time to try and argue with you over it.

I agree that it is rude to add kids on the invitations or try to guilt the couple into inviting them, but I also think exceptions can be made if the couple wants to.

Actually, I expressed it in the first post in this thread.  If she wants to compromise and invite the kid, I suggested that she can.

While the couple can make whatever exceptions they want, they do run the risk of pissing off other guests, possibly with long-term negative consequences, who were not made exceptions for and who had to go to whatever inconvenience they went to in order to attend the wedding without their kids or whatever the exception is.

NYCBruin

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

The name is Jen4948, and I have no such bias.

I think it's totally fine to invite children if one wants to, but if one doesn't want to, everyone else needs to abide by that wish and not put pressure on one to change one's mind/bend the rules.

Really?  This is the 1st time you have ever stated this opinion.  Your prior posts make it sound like you vehemently oppose kids at weddings. . . which is fine.  It just seemed like a waste of time to try and argue with you over it.

I agree that it is rude to add kids on the invitations or try to guilt the couple into inviting them, but I also think exceptions can be made if the couple wants to.

Actually, I expressed it in the first post in this thread.  If she wants to compromise and invite the kid, I suggested that she can.

While the couple can make whatever exceptions they want, they do run the risk of pissing off other guests, possibly with long-term negative consequences, who were not made exceptions for and who had to go to whatever inconvenience they went to in order to attend the wedding without their kids or whatever the exception is.

Why do you always assume that if someone chooses to have a no kids wedding that they (rudely) inform their guests of this?  Why on earth would anyone ever be offended that their child wasn't invited and someone else's was?  How on earth would they know whether the child at the wedding was an exception?  For all they know, the child was invited in the first instance.

Jen4948

NYCBruin said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Jen4948 said:

PrettyGirlLost said:

Oh good grief!  Why does anyone try to argue with JenNumbers about children at weddings?  She has a known bias against children at weddings, no matter the circumstances.

My feeling is that it is just fine to have an adults only wedding, and it is equally as fine to make exceptions for mothers with newborn and nursing infants.  It's just common sense to me; it is much more difficult for mothers with children that young to leave them for hours on end to attend a wedding.  Sure, they can decline but honestly having an infant or two at an otherwise child free event isn't that big of a freaking deal.

If you are afraid that the child will disrupt your ceremony and no one will have the sense to get up and take it elsewhere, then have your DOC, church coordinator, ushers, etc. politely escort the child and caregiver out of the venue if the child actually starts getting fussy and starts crying.

The name is Jen4948, and I have no such bias.

I think it's totally fine to invite children if one wants to, but if one doesn't want to, everyone else needs to abide by that wish and not put pressure on one to change one's mind/bend the rules.

Really?  This is the 1st time you have ever stated this opinion.  Your prior posts make it sound like you vehemently oppose kids at weddings. . . which is fine.  It just seemed like a waste of time to try and argue with you over it.

I agree that it is rude to add kids on the invitations or try to guilt the couple into inviting them, but I also think exceptions can be made if the couple wants to.

Actually, I expressed it in the first post in this thread.  If she wants to compromise and invite the kid, I suggested that she can.

While the couple can make whatever exceptions they want, they do run the risk of pissing off other guests, possibly with long-term negative consequences, who were not made exceptions for and who had to go to whatever inconvenience they went to in order to attend the wedding without their kids or whatever the exception is.

Why do you always assume that if someone chooses to have a no kids wedding that they (rudely) inform their guests of this?  Why on earth would anyone ever be offended that their child wasn't invited and someone else's was?  How on earth would they know whether the child at the wedding was an exception?  For all they know, the child was invited in the first instance.

And just why do you assume that nobody gets pissed off when exceptions are made for others but not themselves?  Go check out the Etiquette Hell website-and that's only one place where it can be read about.  People do find out, and they do get pissed off.  To assume it never happens is erroneous, because it does.

And you know something?  To see someone else's kids there when you were told that the hosts can't make an exception for your kids does indeed suggest that the couple is "making an exception" for those kids just by not asking the parents of those kids to take them away.

Your assumptions that no one will be or should be offended just don't hold water.