We're another kid-free wedding (except for the kids in the WP). You are under no obligation to invite her kids. Lose the crappy excuse though - you want a child-free wedding. There's nothing wrong with that. You don't need to say that you want to give parents the night off.
Your MOH could be upset with you though. Is her mom invited? Why is her mom having to stay home a big deal? If you're feeling generous, offer to pay for a babysitter.
I am surprised at all the people telling OP she should suck it up and let the kids come. I've seen plenty of threads where a guest wants to bring their child and everyone tells them "Just tell them sorry, there are no kids invited, if that means you can't make it then I'll miss you".
Why all of a sudden is this different? If OP doesn't want kids at the wedding, then that is her personal decision. If one person can bring their kids then there could potentially be a domino effect.
OP- Let MOH know that you hope she can find a babysitter so that she can attend the wedding. If the 5 month old is strictly nursing (no formula and no solid food), then technically the 5mo should be able to come. I can't imagine that the only two people in MOH's life is her husband and her mother, no other family members? Friends? Nobody?
This is different because of the bolded. I assume OP does not want her MOH to decline if the kids cannot come and would not say that to her MOH. Fair or not, that's the deal.
Also, nursing babies only is not a required exception to no kids, if that's what your third paragraph is getting at. It would be nice, but not necessary.
We had a kid free wedding, and one of J's GM brought his two young girls unbeknownst to us. Guess what? Totally not a big deal.
You know why having your MOH bring her kids won't really affect anything? Most of the night, you'll be visiting with family and friends, dancing with your husband, and basically being pulled in 10 different directions. The time that you'll really be able to spend with her will be before the wedding while getting ready--can't her husband just bring the kids when he shows up for the ceremony? If her 5 month old starts to get fussy, he'll hopefully make a beeline for the door so as not to disrupt the ceremony.
I'm sure she will enjoy herself with her family at your reception, should you choose to include them. I really don't think it is that large of a concession to make for someone who is close enough to be included in the wedding party.
Why does both her mother and husband have to stay at home with the kids? If the mother isn't invited to the wedding why can't she watch the kids alone?
This whole childfree wedding is nothing new, I don't know why people get up in arms about it like it is some trendy fad they shouldn't have to accommodate. My parents went to weddings all the time without me and my brother when we were little. We either stayed with a family member, a sitter, or only one of my parents went. It is not the end of the world like some parents make it out to be.
I didnt say no kids at my wedding simply because 5 out of the 7 walking children are family (nieces/nephews) and are in the WP. The other 2 walkers are the son of one of my cousins, and the son of one of FIs good friends. There were also 2 *babies* (9mos) invited. One set of parents decided that they did indeed want the night off, and her folks are babysitting - they live about 10min drive away, so between ceremony and reception she will go home and breastfeed. The other set wanted to bring their little girl, so she will be sitting with them.
I got a child minder for the kids - one of the young girls I work with. She is great with kids, and they will be basically just playing on the grounds of the reception (old Edwardian house, and farm turned into beautiful gardens) so parents can relax while still being in sight of the kids.
If your no-kids rule is set in stone, make it clear to her that it is so - but like PPs have said, be aware it might cause a rift.
In no way are you obligated to invite children to the wedding. Don't fall for the guilt trip! If you make an exception for her, you're opening yourself to a world of trouble. Maybe she thinks you're making an exception for the kids participating in the wedding. You can always explain that because they did this for you, these children are invited to the reception. If she didn't know kids weren't invited before agreeing to be in the wedding party you might want to offer to pay a sitter of her choosing. If not, it sounds mean, but YOU are not responsible for HER children - that's what makes her the parent.
I don't think the kids need to be invited, especially since you've only invited wedding party children. I personally would make an exception for the 5 month old if he/she is nursing but I also think it would be crappy to allow one but not the other so I'd end up with both. I remember when my youngest was 5 months old I wouldn't have been able to attend a wedding, or any event, that lasted more than an hour or two if he wasn't with me. But that doesn't mean you have to allow that by any means.
I'd stick to your guns. I like the idea of offering to pay for a sitter. While I don't agree with your reasoning its still your choice to make. Don't let yourself be guilt tripped.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
I didnt say no kids at my wedding simply because 5 out of the 7 walking children are family (nieces/nephews) and are in the WP. The other 2 walkers are the son of one of my cousins, and the son of one of FIs good friends. There were also 2 *babies* (9mos) invited. One set of parents decided that they did indeed want the night off, and her folks are babysitting - they live about 10min drive away, so between ceremony and reception she will go home and breastfeed. The other set wanted to bring their little girl, so she will be sitting with them.
I got a child minder for the kids - one of the young girls I work with. She is great with kids, and they will be basically just playing on the grounds of the reception (old Edwardian house, and farm turned into beautiful gardens) so parents can relax while still being in sight of the kids.
If your no-kids rule is set in stone, make it clear to her that it is so - but like PPs have said, be aware it might cause a rift.
You had zombie children at your wedding??? SO COOL.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day. It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
And if you read the rest of my post, I said the same thing. Highlighted it for you. The point I was making is that many of the PPs seem to think that parents should be cool with any random baby-sitter (which isn't always the case) and gave their advice based on that.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
And if you read the rest of my post, I said the same thing. Highlighted it for you. The point I was making is that many of the PPs seem to think that parents should be cool with any random baby-sitter (which isn't always the case) and gave their advice based on that.
(edited to get out of the quote box)
And my point is, parents need to plan for the possibility that the babysitters they would normally hire won't be available before agreeing to be in a wedding party-whether or not they've been told that their kids are invited or not.
If you (generic throughout again) still want to be in a wedding and your normal babysitters aren't available, you may have to suck it up and get someone you don't know. Either that or you have to decline right off the bat. You can't accept and then make your acceptance conditional on being allowed to bring your kids. Find out first whether or not you can bring your kids or get babysitters for them.
You're not entitled to expect the couple to invite your kids or provide babysitters or entertainment for them-regardless of how "close" you otherwise are to them. It's nice when they choose to do so, but it's strictly up to them-and they're not breaking any rules of etiquette by saying no, and harping on the closeness of your relationship with them is not appropriate.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
And if you read the rest of my post, I said the same thing. Highlighted it for you. The point I was making is that many of the PPs seem to think that parents should be cool with any random baby-sitter (which isn't always the case) and gave their advice based on that.
(edited to get out of the quote box)
And my point is, parents need to plan for the possibility that the babysitters they would normally hire won't be available before agreeing to be in a wedding party-whether or not they've been told that their kids are invited or not.
If you (generic throughout again) still want to be in a wedding and your normal babysitters aren't available, you may have to suck it up and get someone you don't know. Either that or you have to decline right off the bat. You can't accept and then make your acceptance conditional on being allowed to bring your kids. Find out first whether or not you can bring your kids or get babysitters for them.
You're not entitled to expect the couple to invite your kids or provide babysitters or entertainment for them-regardless of how "close" you otherwise are to them. It's nice when they choose to do so, but it's strictly up to them-and they're not breaking any rules of etiquette by saying no, and harping on the closeness of your relationship with them is not appropriate.
All the MOH did was explain her situation and ask if the kids could come; then she left it up to the OP and told her that she was fine with whatever the OP said. She didn't make her attendance or ability to be in the wedding contingent on the OP's answer. She didn't expect the bride to provide child care or arrange it for her. There was ZERO reason for her to decline being in the wedding party when asked because she's going no matter what! Her husband or her mother might not be able to attend, but SHE WILL. She didn't demand or expect that her kids be invited--she asked if they could be included, but will go with the bride's decision.
No one is the bad guy here. The OP just needs find a tactful way of telling her MOH that the kids can't come.
You are under no obligation to invite the kids to your wedding, and it is her responsibility to provide for a sitter (although you paying for it is a nice gesture). However, as a nursing mom of a 5 month old myself, if she is strictly nursing, I would let her bring the baby. At this age most babies are still nursing around the clock, and if she is away from baby for too long that day she could become engorged and uncomfortable, or have to deal with the awkwardness of going somewhere during your wedding to pump. I think that letting baby come would actually put her at ease more than if the baby wasn't there, and it shouldn't be an issue for her husband or mom to take care of the baby while at the wedding so that MOH can focus on you/pictures/etc when she needs to.
All the MOH did was explain her situation and ask if the kids could come; then she left it up to the OP and told her that she was fine with whatever the OP said. She didn't make her attendance or ability to be in the wedding contingent on the OP's answer. She didn't expect the bride to provide child care or arrange it for her. There was ZERO reason for her to decline being in the wedding party when asked because she's going no matter what! Her husband or her mother might not be able to attend, but SHE WILL. She didn't demand or expect that her kids be invited--she asked if they could be included, but will go with the bride's decision.
No one is the bad guy here. The OP just needs find a tactful way of telling her MOH that the kids can't come.
Then the OP can say, "Unfortunately, it isn't possible for us to invite your kids." No other explanations or details are necessary.
A few people are saying that they don't need a night off from their kids. Well sometimes I need a night off from everyone else's kids. If you want your guests to not have to worry about kids and you already told people it was adults only, you risk offending the people you told not to bring their mini mes. I say offer to pay for a sitter. Express that you really are sorry but you've already been communicating Adults Only to people and you'd look like a jerk if you didn't stick to it with everyone.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
And if you read the rest of my post, I said the same thing. Highlighted it for you. The point I was making is that many of the PPs seem to think that parents should be cool with any random baby-sitter (which isn't always the case) and gave their advice based on that.
(edited to get out of the quote box)
And my point is, parents need to plan for the possibility that the babysitters they would normally hire won't be available before agreeing to be in a wedding party-whether or not they've been told that their kids are invited or not.
If you (generic throughout again) still want to be in a wedding and your normal babysitters aren't available, you may have to suck it up and get someone you don't know. Either that or you have to decline right off the bat. You can't accept and then make your acceptance conditional on being allowed to bring your kids. Find out first whether or not you can bring your kids or get babysitters for them.
You're not entitled to expect the couple to invite your kids or provide babysitters or entertainment for them-regardless of how "close" you otherwise are to them. It's nice when they choose to do so, but it's strictly up to them-and they're not breaking any rules of etiquette by saying no, and harping on the closeness of your relationship with them is not appropriate.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day. It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day. It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
Huh?
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
Huh?
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day. It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
Huh?
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
What part is confusing for you?
Pp made a comment about how 12+ away from a 5 month old is a long time. I said that when I was in a bridal party, I wasn't away from home for that long. Pp is upset with me because we agreed on something, but I made it look like we disagreed because I quoted her. I told her that wasn't my intentions.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I think this is like Plus Ones for wedding party members - not required by etiquette, but a really nice thing to do to accommodate your closest friends who are spending so much time and, probably, money on your wedding. For one thing, with wedding party members it's often an all day event, not 'just a couple of hours' as I see thrown about here. Attending a wedding as a wedding party member is often much more of a time commitment than attending as a guest, and as a mother I'd be uncomfortable leaving my 5 month old for 12+ hours.
I've been in a wedding party and it wasn't a 12+ hour day.
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
Which is pretty much exactly what I said. She's not obligated to, but it would be a nice accommodation to make for her MOH.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
Well thank you for making that clear in your original post. And thanks for deeming the majority of my post inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
Huh?
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
What part is confusing for you?
Pp made a comment about how 12+ away from a 5 month old is a long time.
I said that when I was in a bridal party, I wasn't away from home for that long.
Pp is upset with me because we agreed on something, but I made it look like we disagreed because I quoted her.
I told her that wasn't my intentions.
Are you still confused?
Because so am I.
For the record, I'm not upset now that you clarified.
Re: MOH Wants to Bring Her Kids
Your MOH could be upset with you though. Is her mom invited? Why is her mom having to stay home a big deal? If you're feeling generous, offer to pay for a babysitter.
We had a kid free wedding, and one of J's GM brought his two young girls unbeknownst to us. Guess what? Totally not a big deal.
You know why having your MOH bring her kids won't really affect anything? Most of the night, you'll be visiting with family and friends, dancing with your husband, and basically being pulled in 10 different directions. The time that you'll really be able to spend with her will be before the wedding while getting ready--can't her husband just bring the kids when he shows up for the ceremony? If her 5 month old starts to get fussy, he'll hopefully make a beeline for the door so as not to disrupt the ceremony.
I'm sure she will enjoy herself with her family at your reception, should you choose to include them. I really don't think it is that large of a concession to make for someone who is close enough to be included in the wedding party.
I got a child minder for the kids - one of the young girls I work with. She is great with kids, and they will be basically just playing on the grounds of the reception (old Edwardian house, and farm turned into beautiful gardens) so parents can relax while still being in sight of the kids.
If your no-kids rule is set in stone, make it clear to her that it is so - but like PPs have said, be aware it might cause a rift.
I don't think the kids need to be invited, especially since you've only invited wedding party children. I personally would make an exception for the 5 month old if he/she is nursing but I also think it would be crappy to allow one but not the other so I'd end up with both. I remember when my youngest was 5 months old I wouldn't have been able to attend a wedding, or any event, that lasted more than an hour or two if he wasn't with me. But that doesn't mean you have to allow that by any means.
I'd stick to your guns. I like the idea of offering to pay for a sitter. While I don't agree with your reasoning its still your choice to make. Don't let yourself be guilt tripped.
After 6 years and 2 boys, finally tying the knot on October 27th, 2013!
Previously Alaynajuliana
Hahaha I didnt realise it came across like that lol - I meant the other kids that are of walking age (ie not bitty babies)
It's different for every bridal party, though, I'm sure.
Either way, being away from your child is a choice all parents need to make at some point. If they feel they can't do it, then the consequences are they miss out on some things. Only entitled parents think otherwise.
While it would be nice if the bride makes an exception, she shouldn't feel obligated to.
I'd just like to pipe in that offering to pay for a sitter of her choice is great, but the MOH probably doesn't let anyone but her husband and her mother care for her children when she's not there (or just has no other options). I sincerely doubt that she has this huge network of people who she trusts to take care of a five-month old and is refusing to see if any of them can watch her kids in hopes of getting the OP to let her bring bring them. By the time that I have kids, I'll be lucky to have a network of close family and friends to help me out in a pinch like this, but not everyone does. Again, supposition, but if she's the MOH, chances are that a lot of her friends will also be at this wedding and she can't ask them to baby-sit. Also, someone said that the MOH was rude to ask; I disagree completely. She'd be rude to demand that the kids be invited, but asking a friend for a favor isn't rude.
I often like playing devil's advocate--let's just assume that what the MOH said is true and either her husband or mother will have to stay home even though they're both invited. Well, that sucks. But it's not the OP's responsibility to arrange a baby-sitter and the OP doesn't have to accomodate her MOH. OP, go ahead and ask your MOH if there is anyone else who could possibly baby-sit; when she says no, say, "I'm sorry, but I can't have the kids there without getting major backlash from all the family members who couldn't bring their kids." Or, "It's not that I don't want YOUR kids there, I just don't want ANY kids there except for the flower girls."
I'm not the best person to advise on this, though, since we invited all children and babies and I loved having them there. I didn't notice them during the ceremony and barely noticed them at the reception because I was so busy. Even the toddlers were well-behaved.
This is not the bride's or groom's problem. If you (generic throughout) have children and want to be in a wedding party, you need to accept that your children may not be invited, and it's up to you to find someone to babysit your kids. If you're not willing to do that, don't agree to be in the wedding party in the first place.
And if you read the rest of my post, I said the same thing. Highlighted it for you. The point I was making is that many of the PPs seem to think that parents should be cool with any random baby-sitter (which isn't always the case) and gave their advice based on that.
(edited to get out of the quote box)
If you (generic throughout again) still want to be in a wedding and your normal babysitters aren't available, you may have to suck it up and get someone you don't know. Either that or you have to decline right off the bat. You can't accept and then make your acceptance conditional on being allowed to bring your kids. Find out first whether or not you can bring your kids or get babysitters for them.
You're not entitled to expect the couple to invite your kids or provide babysitters or entertainment for them-regardless of how "close" you otherwise are to them. It's nice when they choose to do so, but it's strictly up to them-and they're not breaking any rules of etiquette by saying no, and harping on the closeness of your relationship with them is not appropriate.
All the MOH did was explain her situation and ask if the kids could come; then she left it up to the OP and told her that she was fine with whatever the OP said. She didn't make her attendance or ability to be in the wedding contingent on the OP's answer. She didn't expect the bride to provide child care or arrange it for her. There was ZERO reason for her to decline being in the wedding party when asked because she's going no matter what! Her husband or her mother might not be able to attend, but SHE WILL. She didn't demand or expect that her kids be invited--she asked if they could be included, but will go with the bride's decision.
No one is the bad guy here. The OP just needs find a tactful way of telling her MOH that the kids can't come.
However, as a nursing mom of a 5 month old myself, if she is strictly nursing, I would let her bring the baby. At this age most babies are still nursing around the clock, and if she is away from baby for too long that day she could become engorged and uncomfortable, or have to deal with the awkwardness of going somewhere during your wedding to pump. I think that letting baby come would actually put her at ease more than if the baby wasn't there, and it shouldn't be an issue for her husband or mom to take care of the baby while at the wedding so that MOH can focus on you/pictures/etc when she needs to.
I only quoted you to refer to the 12+ hours you mentioned. That's it. Any other part of your post was inconsequential.
I tried to make it clear by putting two spaces in between my paragraphs. And I didn't mean that the rest of your post was inconsequential. I meant that anything else I posted in that post wasn't referring to your post, agreeing or disagreeing.
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
"Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends time and space."
Huh?
Who else is super confused right now with this exchange? Just me?
What part is confusing for you?
Pp made a comment about how 12+ away from a 5 month old is a long time.
I said that when I was in a bridal party, I wasn't away from home for that long.
Pp is upset with me because we agreed on something, but I made it look like we disagreed because I quoted her.
I told her that wasn't my intentions.
Are you still confused?
Because so am I.
For the record, I'm not upset now that you clarified.