Not inviting kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

Yes, if only one guest has kids it is targeted.

Incorrect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lol, all the childless posters flood in her during dinnertime to complain about kids.

Nobody is complaining about kids.

We are complaining about entitled parents.

+1,000,000. And I am a parent.

[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:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.

DP - The bride and groom are not allowed to choose a venue that does not allow children. That would be a personal attack on OP (who has a child and is therefore the dictator of this event).

The wedding couple must only choose (and pay for) a venue that will accommodate OP and the baby.

Maybe they can hire a wet nurse for her so she can leave the house for 2 hours.

They are still attacking her personally by forcing her to fly with a baby to a destination wedding. This is not acceptable.

The wedding needs to be in a convenient location for OP and her baby.

Maybe OP can host it in her backyard. But I’m sure she won’t want any icky groom or groom’s friends in her house, like the other post here.

The backyard is too far. There are bugs and the baby might catch a chill. The wedding must take place within the baby’s tastefully decorated nursery, within a select optimal eight-minute window.

[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:Declining the invitation is fine. Wheedling about the baby is not.

No rational mother would want to take a 3mo to a group event anyway, especially at the tail end of cold/flu/COVID season.

Decline, that is absolutely fine. But making this such a production and whining and wheedling and running to the Internet is beyond stupid.

And yes, I breastfed two babies, and had bottle refusal with the first. Even with bottle refusal, I would have stopped by my brother’s local wedding reception for an hour or two while DH tried a bottle at home. It would have been a worthwhile opportunity for bottle practice, and if it didn’t work, I’d just feed when I got home.

I bet if I showed up for an hour or two it would unfortunately cause more drama. She likely wouldn't be able to attend the dinner and then there would be whining about how rude she was leaving early.

Just skip both events.

OK? If someone whined at me in a situation like that, I would say, “Yes, sorry, must get back to the baby. Lovely to see you all, and congratulations, Jim and Beth!” Then leave. If people whine or pout, so what? So freaking what? Then what, you’ll explode or drop dead if someone pouts at you? Or the world will keep turning and you’ll just carry on with your day. It’s one of those two things, PP.

Main character syndrome. Is OP actually fantasizing that if she went for an hour people would be begging her to stay? Which people? Neither the B&G or groom’s parents care. Who are the other guests? Presumably the couple’s friends and perhaps bride parents? Why would they be there to see OP? It’s only 15 people. OP isn’t that special.

See, that's why she shouldn't leave though. Leaving before the event is over DOES make it all about her and takes the attention away from the brother which would be very hurtful. Like another hour away from the baby is more important than celebrating her brother's special day? Come on. OP needs to suck it up and stick it out or decline.

Honestly, are you OK? If a mother of a 3mo baby needs to leave to go take care of her baby and breastfeed her baby, that is 100% understandable and acceptable. If someone thinks that it is unreasonable or disruptive, that’s their problem.

Besides, this event is extremely low-key, a courthouse wedding followed by a small dinner. That is an intimate setting with family who understand there is a baby at home.

Anyone “hurt” by that should have been flexible with inviting OP’s whole family so they could be with her and she could breastfeed at the restaurant.

Op asked if there was flexibility and didn't get an answer. I would expect an understanding family would have at minimum responded "no and we understand if you can't make the whole event."

The fact they didn't makes me wonder what kind of response op would get if she ducks out early.

You mean OP didn’t get an answer they liked bc this is what she said: They said "oh actually kids aren't invited, please find an arrangement for them".

Why are you saying there was no response? You completely misread the OP or are just making it up as you go.

That's a good catch. Based on that message they expect OP to come no matter what and will likely make a big deal if op politely declines.

Op lost the family lottery.

+1
Also, to all of those chiming in to report how you bottle fed, or pumped, or left your newborn, fine. You raise your baby the way you decide. It doesn’t make it an ok choice for OP. She doesn’t have to do what you did.

We get that OP won’t be told what to do. Clearly she’s going to crash this wedding with her uninvited kids.

The bridezilla contingent in here is nuts. I don’t think OP has given any indication that she wants to or would do that. Her brother doesn’t care and her parents probably just want to make a show for the in laws.

The creative writers have imagined some bizarre scenario where everyone will freak out if OP doesn’t come. Based on what exactly?

Not a damn thing (well, except their own sense of entitlement about their own children).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.

A brewery that doesn’t allow kids?! Point me to one because all of the ones here in Maryland allow kids, and they are frankly turning into unpleasant loud playgrounds with drunk parents who don’t watch their kids. /OT

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

[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:Declining the invitation is fine. Wheedling about the baby is not.

No rational mother would want to take a 3mo to a group event anyway, especially at the tail end of cold/flu/COVID season.

Decline, that is absolutely fine. But making this such a production and whining and wheedling and running to the Internet is beyond stupid.

And yes, I breastfed two babies, and had bottle refusal with the first. Even with bottle refusal, I would have stopped by my brother’s local wedding reception for an hour or two while DH tried a bottle at home. It would have been a worthwhile opportunity for bottle practice, and if it didn’t work, I’d just feed when I got home.

I bet if I showed up for an hour or two it would unfortunately cause more drama. She likely wouldn't be able to attend the dinner and then there would be whining about how rude she was leaving early.

Just skip both events.

OK? If someone whined at me in a situation like that, I would say, “Yes, sorry, must get back to the baby. Lovely to see you all, and congratulations, Jim and Beth!” Then leave. If people whine or pout, so what? So freaking what? Then what, you’ll explode or drop dead if someone pouts at you? Or the world will keep turning and you’ll just carry on with your day. It’s one of those two things, PP.

Main character syndrome. Is OP actually fantasizing that if she went for an hour people would be begging her to stay? Which people? Neither the B&G or groom’s parents care. Who are the other guests? Presumably the couple’s friends and perhaps bride parents? Why would they be there to see OP? It’s only 15 people. OP isn’t that special.

See, that's why she shouldn't leave though. Leaving before the event is over DOES make it all about her and takes the attention away from the brother which would be very hurtful. Like another hour away from the baby is more important than celebrating her brother's special day? Come on. OP needs to suck it up and stick it out or decline.

Honestly, are you OK? If a mother of a 3mo baby needs to leave to go take care of her baby and breastfeed her baby, that is 100% understandable and acceptable. If someone thinks that it is unreasonable or disruptive, that’s their problem.

Besides, this event is extremely low-key, a courthouse wedding followed by a small dinner. That is an intimate setting with family who understand there is a baby at home.

Anyone “hurt” by that should have been flexible with inviting OP’s whole family so they could be with her and she could breastfeed at the restaurant.

Op asked if there was flexibility and didn't get an answer. I would expect an understanding family would have at minimum responded "no and we understand if you can't make the whole event."

The fact they didn't makes me wonder what kind of response op would get if she ducks out early.

You mean OP didn’t get an answer they liked bc this is what she said: They said "oh actually kids aren't invited, please find an arrangement for them".

Why are you saying there was no response? You completely misread the OP or are just making it up as you go.

That's a good catch. Based on that message they expect OP to come no matter what and will likely make a big deal if op politely declines.

They aren't making a big deal if people decline due to the destination. They would not make a big deal for parents declining due to children.

Don't create non-existent drama.

Op lost the family lottery.

Because a couple is planning the wedding they want and paying for it?

Yeah. Sure. Maybe they should pay for OPs lifetime of therapy to cope with her losing the family lottery.

Please show where they said that. They said find arrangements for them. Not "we understand of you can't make it"or "we hope you can come for at least part of it."

Very clear they expect OP to be there.

It's implied. It's only drama if you are a person inclined to create drama, like a parent thinking a child-free wedding is an act of hostility directed at them personally - like many posters here.

We don’t even have the full conversation. You’re fully invested in OPs situation which is probably leaving out a lot of details.

We have OPs details that she feels targeted by a general exclusion of children that includes her but isn't targeting her personally.

OP is perhaps the best indication that her close family member is also a drama loon. Other than that, we have no indication based on the common type of wedding they are celebrating. They only thing drama about the brother is his sister.

OP peaced out of this conversation a long time ago. People have spent more time arguing about her brother’s wedding than she would ever even spend at the wedding if she bothered to make an appearance and wish the marrying couple well.

Mic drop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.

A brewery that doesn’t allow kids?! Point me to one because all of the ones here in Maryland allow kids, and they are frankly turning into unpleasant loud playgrounds with drunk parents who don’t watch their kids. /OT

It's a dinner. Not brunch. Do you like to take your kids to breweries in the evening? The more the protesters complain the more obvious it is that nothing about this is appropriate for kids. Some of you seem to have some questionable parenting skills.

[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:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.

A brewery that doesn’t allow kids?! Point me to one because all of the ones here in Maryland allow kids, and they are frankly turning into unpleasant loud playgrounds with drunk parents who don’t watch their kids. /OT

It's a dinner. Not brunch. Do you like to take your kids to breweries in the evening? The more the protesters complain the more obvious it is that nothing about this is appropriate for kids. Some of you seem to have some questionable parenting skills.

I was answering off-topic based on that one person’s reply.

I don’t. That’s why I’m looking for one that does not allow kids. I would like to enjoy a beer and drinks without little kids running around and babies crying. I’m saying breweries and alcohol centric establishments are not appropriate for kids.

(Lone Oak in Montgomery County briefly restricted children from the distillery area but they lifted that and are also now allowing babies in the speakeasy.)
/OT

[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:This is your daily reminder that while your kids may be the center of YOUR world, they are not in fact the center of THE world.

Also a good daily reminder to brides and grooms that they can invite who they want but they can't force people to attend.

And absolutely NO ONE said otherwise.

Go back and read all the posts paying special attention to the ones calling parents "co dependent" or mocking them as bestest firstest ever wanting a participation trophy.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding.

She can consider her baby’s needs by simply replying no. But that’s not what happened here.

+1

It's always the parents making this a thing. They simply can't decline and leave it at that.

People are absolutely trashing the op for considering her baby's needs over her brother's courthouse wedding

Wrong. OP is being called out for this:

OP: "Obviously it's 100% your right to have a child-free wedding but it just seems very targeted at us"

It's targeted at OP if the invite read "OP's children are not invited". OP making this more than it is - simply a childfree wedding and dinner - is why OP is getting criticism.

Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby - to intentionally exclude her - this "targeted" thinking is baseless, a manifestation of her frustration over a child free wedding.

Op is the only guest with kids so by your logic then yes, it is directed at her.

No, it's not targeted at her. The post you just read explained why:

"Unless they specifically planned to have the wedding after OP had a baby..."
"It's targeted at OP if the invite read 'OP's children are not invited'".

If a store has a sign that says "no women allowed" it's targeted to woman. It doesn't have to list every woman by name.

It’s a party. For all we know it’s at a brewery that doesn’t allow kids.

A brewery that doesn’t allow kids?! Point me to one because all of the ones here in Maryland allow kids, and they are frankly turning into unpleasant loud playgrounds with drunk parents who don’t watch their kids. /OT

It's a dinner. Not brunch. Do you like to take your kids to breweries in the evening? The more the protesters complain the more obvious it is that nothing about this is appropriate for kids. Some of you seem to have some questionable parenting skills.

I was answering off-topic based on that one person’s reply.

I don’t. That’s why I’m looking for one that does not allow kids. I would like to enjoy a beer and drinks without little kids running around and babies crying. I’m saying breweries and alcohol centric establishments are not appropriate for kids.

(Lone Oak in Montgomery County briefly restricted children from the distillery area but they lifted that and are also now allowing babies in the speakeasy.)
/OT

It doesn't even matter what the establishment is. OP was asked to find alternate arrangements for her kids. And if she can't, or won't, then I guess she doesn't go. It's not up for debate and what guest does that? Do people here routinely ask guests to change the dates of their parties to something better for them? Or the time if they don't like it? Or the venue because the food sucks? No. That's wildly inappropriate like, it says no kids but surely you didn't mean mine, right? Or I hate that place, have you considered one I like better?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

I appreciate any gift and thank whoever gives it. In many cases, yes, a $50 gift card is an appropriate wedding gift. Instead of attacking people who have different financial resources or traditions than you why don't you spend some time reflecting on your anger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

I appreciate any gift and thank whoever gives it. In many cases, yes, a $50 gift card is an appropriate wedding gift. Instead of attacking people who have different financial resources or traditions than you why don't you spend some time reflecting on your anger.

Why would you say a $50 card and sign all 4 names? You’re trying to be petty. Just say “send a gift” why be specific unless you’re trying to make a point with that specific gift?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

I appreciate any gift and thank whoever gives it. In many cases, yes, a $50 gift card is an appropriate wedding gift. Instead of attacking people who have different financial resources or traditions than you why don't you spend some time reflecting on your anger.

Why would you say a $50 card and sign all 4 names? You’re trying to be petty. Just say “send a gift” why be specific unless you’re trying to make a point with that specific gift?

Whose names should she sign?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

I appreciate any gift and thank whoever gives it. In many cases, yes, a $50 gift card is an appropriate wedding gift. Instead of attacking people who have different financial resources or traditions than you why don't you spend some time reflecting on your anger.

Why would you say a $50 card and sign all 4 names? You’re trying to be petty. Just say “send a gift” why be specific unless you’re trying to make a point with that specific gift?

Whose names should she sign?

DP

The names of the people on the invite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Skip all the events. Send a card and a $50 gift card to Amazon. Sign all 4 names on the card. Done.

Only if you’re a massive overgrown toddler like this person, OP.

Trying to understand how declining and sending a gift from the family is a overgrow toddler move.

Oh yes, because you really think “a $50 Amazon gift card” is an appropriate wedding gift for anyone, let alone a sibling, in 2026. Please, girl. You, and OP, are just pissy that her kids aren’t invited, thus your tacky comment. Don’t even try it.

I appreciate any gift and thank whoever gives it. In many cases, yes, a $50 gift card is an appropriate wedding gift. Instead of attacking people who have different financial resources or traditions than you why don't you spend some time reflecting on your anger.

Why would you say a $50 card and sign all 4 names? You’re trying to be petty. Just say “send a gift” why be specific unless you’re trying to make a point with that specific gift?

Whose names should she sign?

The adults. The people who can actually sign their own names.