Family Feud, and the baby isn't even here yet

PineapplePam

It's amazing that I made it through planning my own wedding not so long ago and never once had to post a question. Here goes...

My husband was asked a few weeks ago to be his cousin's best man (they are the closest either one has to a brother). Hubby said he'd love to, and although it might be tough for me to travel to the opposite coast with our on-the-way son (he'll be ~6 months at the time of the wedding), we'd make it work. Groom responded he hoped we could all make it and that they looked forward to meeting and visiting with the baby. 

Fast forward a week or two, and we get an email mentioning their "no kids" policy for the wedding. Yup, applies to our "kid" too, so you can imagine our shock. I get it, we had an adult reception, but made a couple exceptions for close family who were traveling from out of state and/or in the wedding. It wasn't a big deal. The fact is, I can't leave a still-nursing 6-month-old to travel 2,700 miles for 3+ days. So essentially, the groom is excluding his best man's wife (me) from going to the wedding. This guy was also the best man in our wedding, so it's more than a little hurtful that he can't make this accommodation. To add insult to injury, we just learned that they ARE making a kid exception for someone in the bride's family (and no, the kid isn't in the wedding).

The worst part is, my husband is in a horrible position because he's caught in the middle. He doesn't want to jeopardize his relationship with his cousin, but also doesn't think it's okay to leave baby and wife behind. It's causing us a tremendous amount of stress, and we just don't know where to go from here. Input anyone?

Jen4948

Unfortunately, your husband can't demand that your baby be invited as a condition of his being a best man.

I recognize that it's hard or impossible for you to leave your baby alone.  But, the cousin and his FI had every right to plan an adults-only event, and their plans may just not permit "accommodation."  They didn't make the plans with the intention of screwing you over, so I wouldn't take that attitude here.

Instead, I would compromise by letting your husband act as best man and attend the wedding by himself.  If the cousin and his FI don't want to invite babies, then yes, I think they forfeit the right to expect you to make yourself and the baby available for their entertainment.  But I think that trying to get your husband to boycott the wedding on your behalf and the baby's will drive a wedge between him and his cousin that he will resent you for.  This isn't a hill I would die on.

PineapplePam

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

KatWAG

PineapplePam said:

It's amazing that I made it through planning my own wedding not so long ago and never once had to post a question. Here goes...

My husband was asked a few weeks ago to be his cousin's best man (they are the closest either one has to a brother). Hubby said he'd love to, and although it might be tough for me to travel to the opposite coast with our on-the-way son (he'll be ~6 months at the time of the wedding), we'd make it work. Groom responded he hoped we could all make it and that they looked forward to meeting and visiting with the baby. 

Fast forward a week or two, and we get an email mentioning their "no kids" policy for the wedding. Yup, applies to our "kid" too, so you can imagine our shock. I get it, we had an adult reception, but made a couple exceptions for close family who were traveling from out of state and/or in the wedding. It wasn't a big deal. The fact is, I can't leave a still-nursing 6-month-old to travel 2,700 miles for 3+ days. So essentially, the groom is excluding his best man's wife (me) from going to the wedding. This guy was also the best man in our wedding, so it's more than a little hurtful that he can't make this accommodation. To add insult to injury, we just learned that they ARE making a kid exception for someone in the bride's family (and no, the kid isn't in the wedding).

The worst part is, my husband is in a horrible position because he's caught in the middle. He doesn't want to jeopardize his relationship with his cousin, but also doesn't think it's okay to leave baby and wife behind. It's causing us a tremendous amount of stress, and we just don't know where to go from here. Input anyone?

This does suck. And sending an email saying "no -kids' was rude on the cousins part.

But it is perfectly acceptable to have a kid-free wedding. You may not like it, but you dont really get a say. If your H declines to attend, maybe the cousin will respond to the no kids policy and make an exception for your baby. But I wouldnt count on it.

Teddy917

1. Did he directly tell you that "no kids" included yours? Or was it a group email?

2. He is perfectly within etiquette to have a kids-free wedding or invite some and not others. He shouldn't have made any sort of announcement though (except word of mouth). Usually it's recommended to invite kids in circles (kids in BP, family only, OOT only, etc.), but not mandatory,

KatWAG

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

Well you were in the wrong here. She should have been invited if they were in a relationship.

Jen4948

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

Stop reading it as "a real slap in the face."  This attitude is going to lose you sympathy here.

 How do you know that they are making an exception for someone else?  And whether or not you made an exception at your wedding is not relevant to what someone else does at theirs.

Not to mention that the status of anyone's relationship at the time of your wedding was not your business-leaving out an SO because the couple is not married or engaged is rude.  Not all SOs are married or engaged.  It's not for you to judge their relationships anymore than you would want yours to be judged.

LadyMillil

The fact is, I can't leave a still-nursing 6-month-old to travel 2,700 miles for 3+ days. So essentially, the groom is excluding his best man's wife (me) from going to the wedding.

Stuck in a box

Have you mentioned this to the cousin? It is possible that they may not realize the difficulties you will have travelling with or leaving behind a baby. Or, would the cousin be able to help you arrange child care on site? That way, baby is not at the reception, but close by so you can duck out to nurse/check that everything is going ok with the sitter.

Congrats on the baby!

PineapplePam

Not ridiculous or uncommon in any way. Shame on you for judging.

Teddy917

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

I know it's already happened, but just had the etiquette-itch to mention that ALL SOs should've been invited, regardless of status.

BMoreBride6

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

There's a couple things here...I think it is perfectly acceptable for your husband to have a conversation with the groom explaining that while he would very much like to be there, he may not be able to make it under circumstances of the baby.  On the other side, it is perfectly acceptable of the bride and groom not to extend the invite to the baby.  It may suck, but it is the truth.  

And to the bolded, no you did not actually do them any favors by inviting her when they weren't engaged.  It was wrong of you not to extend invites to all SO's of guests so you are in the wrong there.  

edited typo.

KatWAG

PineapplePam said:

Not ridiculous or uncommon in any way. Shame on you for judging.

What? It is ridiculous to not invite couples in a realtionship and it is ridiculous to assume Little Timmy is invited.

PineapplePam

We certainly have tried to talk to them about how this sticks both of us (husband isn't comfortable leaving baby any more than I am).

banana468

Only you two can make this choice.

I get that it seems unfair that they're making an exception but not for you. Unfortunately, that's something they get to do and shouldn't have shared.

Don't make this into something bigger. You two need to decide if you're comfortable finding a sitter across the country or if you and the baby should stay home. You have options here but forcing a family feud should NOT be on the list.

Maggie0829

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

Look, they are not preventing you from attending the wedding.  Not every Mother breastfeeds so they may not know that you will be doing so.  Even so, they still do not need to include your child. I realize that you are pissed that they are not making an exception when you made exceptions for your wedding, but they don't have to make an exception for you.  You need to get over it.  Your FI should not drop out of the wedding over this.  Tell him to go and have a good time while you stay at home.  Think of the money you will save in travel costs.

As for the bolded.  I realize that your wedding is over with but I really can't believe that you only invited couples who were engaged or married.  That was a nice way of telling those couples without a ring that their relationship wasn't nearly as important or serious as those with rings to constitute an invite with their SO.  Maybe you should have asked a question or two when planning your wedding.

PineapplePam

I'm going to consider that we were just raised differently and have different backgrounds of what is right and wrong here and disagree. 

KatWAG

PineapplePam said:

I'm going to consider that we were just raised differently and have different backgrounds of what is right and wrong here and disagree. 

Let me guess, it's a regional thing?

PineapplePam

LOL you're really stuck on this one. Get left off an invite once and still sore over it? Get over it, that's not even the issue of the OP.

BMoreBride6

also, consider it this way.  You made an "exception" for them by inviting her (which actually you did not, but that has been explained).  I'm sure there were plenty of people that felt like you extending this exception to them while not inviting their SO's was a "slap in the face".  Now you are being offended by something you essentially did yourselves.  

banana468

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

Oh you made an exception?

I'm sorry but she should have been invited all along. Cutting off your SOs at engaged or married only is extremely rude. If you only invited half of an established couple to your wedding you should be apologizing to them for the egregious offense.

PineapplePam

We were also told initially that baby was welcome...

LondonLisa

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

I agree with PP- you lose all the "slap in the face" credibility when you did this. How very hurtful and nasty! Who are you to judge the seriousness of other people's relationships? One is required to invite all SOs to a wedding (and the definition is if they consider themselves in a relationship). 

Your behaviour was a big slap in the face to unmarried/ non engaged couples that you didn't deem worthy of an invite to your wedding. 

Part of the decision to have children includes that they will not be invited everywhere meaning that you will be unable to attend. And yes, this means that you will have to miss out on certain fun events. Yes, sometimes it isn't fun (and may not seem fair in your eyes). But that is the reality of parenting young children and you just have to accept it. 

Teddy917

PineapplePam said:

We certainly have tried to talk to them about how this sticks both of us (husband isn't comfortable leaving baby any more than I am).

Then that's all you can do. Now if you want to go, go. If you don't, don't. But don't be all butt-hurt about it.

Maggie0829

PineapplePam said:

LOL you're really stuck on this one. Get left off an invite once and still sore over it? Get over it, that's not even the issue of the OP.

No I never was because my friends and family would never be so rude to their guests and their guests SOs.

And I spoke to your main issue.  It is called get the fuck over it.

chibiyui

PineapplePam said:

LOL you're really stuck on this one. Get left off an invite once and still sore over it? Get over it, that's not even the issue of the OP.

Well, the issue is you're getting upset over something that does not break etiquette, while admitting you think you deserve special treatment because you made an exception on something you did that was against etiquette.

It sucks that the baby isn't invited to the wedding. It is not worth starting a family feud over.

PineapplePam

Whew, hostile!

PineapplePam

And I think I've said repeatedly that I don't support him dropping out, he's the one considering on a purely personal level. As stated in my original post, I feel badly that my husband is in this position, but he feels stuck regardless of what I say.

mbross3

PineapplePam said:

I get that it's their right to have the wedding the desire. But it's a real slap in the face when they DO make an exception for someone else.

I should also note that we made an exception for the bride-to-be to attend our wedding, which otherwise included only engaged/married couples, which they weren't at the time.

I also NEVER said anything about "getting my husband to boycott the wedding", so please don't put words in my mouth. He has suggested stepping down from the role, which I haven't supported in any way.

I agree with you that this is a totally unfortunate situation. They are completely within their rights to have a kid free wedding, but I totally get being disappointed that it would force you to stay behind, especially since it seems that you are relatively close to them. Your options are to let your husband go while you stay home with baby, or your husband can decide to stay home with you (this should be entirely his decision). 

However you completely lose me with the bolded above. You seem to be suggesting that only engaged/married couples are worth recognizing as a social unit. If someone is "just dating" they don't deserve to have their SO invited? This is incredibly rude. I have been dating my BF for about 2 years and living together for about 1 year. I would be incredibly offended to not be invited to join him for a wedding because we aren't engaged. This is not common, it is rude, and it is not your place to judge anyone's relationship or suggest that someone's is more valid because they're engaged/married.

ETA typo

Maggie0829

PineapplePam said:

And I think I've said repeatedly that I don't support him dropping out, he's the one considering on a purely personal level. As stated in my original post, I feel badly that my husband is in this position, but he feels stuck regardless of what I say.

I don't understand why he feels stuck.  You say you don't support him dropping out so you tell him "Honey, go to your cousins wedding.  Little Timmy and I will be just fine for a few days."

banana468

PineapplePam said:

I'm going to consider that we were just raised differently and have different backgrounds of what is right and wrong here and disagree. 

Let's not go there. I guarantee you that the person excluding established couple's isn't going to come out smelling like anything but week old Valentine's Day flowers.

Your wedding guest list plan WAS against etiquette. This isn't a debatable or an "agree to disagree" topic.

In your current situation, the couple isn't doing anything wrong and you are completely ignoring the option of attending the wedding with your husband and finding a sitter near the wedding.

PineapplePam

I'm really not suggesting that about unmarried couples. A couple posters decided to take that one and run with it rather than read the OP and consider the actual issues. The reality is, our guestlist started with people who were either single or engaged/married, so it's not like we were excluding SOs left and right. Obviously people who have been in a relationship for 2 years or more is very different from someone who went on their first date last week.

I suppose I'll repost later under some other pseudonym, and hope that people actually focus on the question rather than nitpick details just to let out their pent up aggression.

So glad I never did come on here when i was planning. There is some real hostility!