Siblings kids not invited to wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If it's a destination wedding- is it at an all inclusive resort with childcare?

I don't like children to be invited to weddings either. I didn't know any kids when dh and I got married, so it wasn't an issue. I've seen a lot of kids ruin wedding.

That being said, I think siblings' kids should be invited. My kids were hurt they weren't invited to our only sister's wedding (my oldest is girly and wanted to be a flower girl). Looking back it's weird they aren't in any of the family pictures. These were the last times we could have had 4 generations present too. I brought my parents to the wedding weekend and my kids stayed with them at the hotel.

Weird? This was a childfree wedding not a family reunion. I would not to expect to see children in childfree wedding pictures. If the generational pictures with kids was so important to you then why did you not ever arrange to have a large family reunion yourself? Wait…I suppose you want someone else to do all that work/planning. Or better yet just change the childfree wedding to suit your interests. Geeesh…

A wedding at it's core is the joining of two families. No one is asking for a family reunion. Nieces and nephews aren't the same as cousins' kids or random friends' kids.

No. A wedding at its core is the joining of two singles into a committed marital unit.

+1

You don't know who on the other side is closest to whom, you were not there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

Clearly you have not attended many weddings. Which is fine, but you don't get to dictate what other couples do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I’ll still be nursing the littlest so my preference is to bring the kids with ILs to watch them or pay for a trusted friend to come on the trip with us as a nanny. I’m not in the wedding. I have a small family so really only have family weddings every 10 years, so I don’t want my spouse to miss. Maybe I should be more specific and ask my sibling if we can baby wear the child under 1 since they won’t need a seat/plate and won’t be running around? The ceremony will be 30 mins and the breakfast reception will be 3 hours max since it’s non-traditional. Just not sure if I’m being unreasonable to ask.

They don't want your baby there. It might make noise and ruin their ceremony.

This. And yes it is unreasonable to ask. Do you not think your sibling knows you have a baby?

Why would her sibling even invite her to the wedding if she knows about the baby?
She’s not under any obligation to invite anyone. So why invite a sibling with a baby who might ruin the ceremony?

Because maybe she would leave baby with sitter or in-laws. She has the option to decline. Sibling won’t care either way. No big deal.

Sibling wouldn't care if their sibling didn't come to their wedding - wow?!

The sibling getting married may be tired of this sibling's demands, manipulations, and effery, over the decades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

PP is just arguing to argue.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Destination weddings are the worst, for all kinds of reasons not even mentioned by the OP. They are the height of selfishness and self absorption. If you want to have a wedding someplace else, just elope.

+1000
Destination weddings really do make a (highly negative) statement about the bride and groom

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I’ll still be nursing the littlest so my preference is to bring the kids with ILs to watch them or pay for a trusted friend to come on the trip with us as a nanny. I’m not in the wedding. I have a small family so really only have family weddings every 10 years, so I don’t want my spouse to miss. Maybe I should be more specific and ask my sibling if we can baby wear the child under 1 since they won’t need a seat/plate and won’t be running around? The ceremony will be 30 mins and the breakfast reception will be 3 hours max since it’s non-traditional. Just not sure if I’m being unreasonable to ask.

They don't want your baby there. It might make noise and ruin their ceremony.

This. And yes it is unreasonable to ask. Do you not think your sibling knows you have a baby?

Why would her sibling even invite her to the wedding if she knows about the baby?
She’s not under any obligation to invite anyone. So why invite a sibling with a baby who might ruin the ceremony?

Because maybe she would leave baby with sitter or in-laws. She has the option to decline. Sibling won’t care either way. No big deal.

Sibling wouldn't care if their sibling didn't come to their wedding - wow?!

Sibling can’t care too much if she is having a no kids destination wedding and her sister has young kids, one of which is an infant that is still nursing.

[Anonymous]

This is yours sibling. IDK about you, but I can pretty much ask my siblings anything and it wouldn’t be weird or awkward. Just ask!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

As was said earlier, they should only invite selfless, happily married people to their wedding.

Why even invite people with babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

As was said earlier, they should only invite selfless, happily married people to their wedding.

Why even invite people with babies?

Sometimes people who have babies will come without the baby, and sometimes they won't. How do you know until you ask?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

As was said earlier, they should only invite selfless, happily married people to their wedding.

Why even invite people with babies?

Sometimes people who have babies will come without the baby, and sometimes they won't. How do you know until you ask?

+1

PP knows this. PP is just trying to play ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

As was said earlier, they should only invite selfless, happily married people to their wedding.

Why even invite people with babies?

Sometimes people who have babies will come without the baby, and sometimes they won't. How do you know until you ask?

Because sometimes asking puts people in an uncomfortable position, like the OP of this thread.
Just do the polite thing and don’t ask.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

+1000. OP, you need to ask your sibling. Or your mom. There are going to be lots of family pictures. Do they expect you to be in the pictures? If this is an extremely small wedding (less than 20 people total), then, I have a different viewpoint. If it is this small they could care less if anyone comes, and I would just decline (if that's what you want to do).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Infants in arms are an exception to the “no kids” rule.

I’m sorry though. Both of my siblings did this too. My brother wanted the kids to be in the wedding photos, but not at the wedding. So I had to bring them and get them dressed up, and then send them off to the hotel with the babysitter.

No, they are not.

Yes they are.
If you don’t want your sister to bring her infant to your wedding, then don’t invite her.

Nope. The invite would have said “infants in arms ok” if that is what “no kids” had meant.

And sure, don’t invite the sister with kids. That would go over so well! Would be an epic DCUM thread!

Honestly, it won’t go over awesome if the OP just doesn’t go to her sibling’s wedding.

Why can’t the sibling just take the blame and not invite the siblings with kids?

Because it is more appropriate for the mom to say no than the bride to say no.

What is the bride saying “no” to? There isn’t a question.
Just don’t invite people with babies. Then this doesn’t come up. Problem solved.

Your idea is nonsensical.

It’s not nonsensical.

If you don’t want the possibility of an infant ruining your wedding, then don’t invite people who have infants. What’s nonsense?

If a wedding can be "ruined" by an infant, it wasn't much of a wedding anyway.

+1

How would you feel if you could not hear the vows you are supposed to be saying at your own wedding, because Snowflake Parents could not remove Snowflake Kid during Snowflake Kid's meltdown?

You had your wedding day. What went wrong, that you want to impose on someone else's wedding day? Because happily married people don't try to manipulate other people's weddings.

Why is someone else's wedding day all about you? Maybe the bride and groom only want selfless people to attend, who are able to actually be happy for others. If not, stay home. Done and done.

As was said earlier, they should only invite selfless, happily married people to their wedding.

Why even invite people with babies?

Sometimes people who have babies will come without the baby, and sometimes they won't. How do you know until you ask?

Because sometimes asking puts people in an uncomfortable position, like the OP of this thread.
Just do the polite thing and don’t ask.

And then "because sometimes not asking puts people in an uncomfortable position."

Can't we all just offer what we can offer and conversely accept what we can accept, like adults?

[Anonymous]

You can’t. You go and spouse stays home with the kids.