Siblings kids not invited to wedding

[Anonymous]

I would go for just one the day/ overnight and leave the kids at home with dh. She can’t expect more than that from a mom of young kids that she’s not accommodating and if she doesn’t understand that now she will once she has kids.

[Anonymous]

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.

YOUR definition of a wedding applies to you NOT everybody else. Not everyone does weddings the same way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would go for just one the day/ overnight and leave the kids at home with dh. She can’t expect more than that from a mom of young kids that she’s not accommodating and if she doesn’t understand that now she will once she has kids.

She will probably choose to be childfree. Which is fine! 😁
Agree they will not expect anymore time than what you suggested.

[Anonymous]

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?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What do your parents think, OP? I can’t imagine my mom not weighing in on this.

It is not your mom’s business.

How can you know that?

I mean, it’s entirely possible that this family is very close.

Still not her business if all are functional adults. Very close can indicate controlling busy body.

That might be true . Honestly, my mom cared more about our weddings than any of us. We just wanted to be married. The whole “to do” was about our parents and extended families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Destination weddings are selfish. Requiring your brother or sister to leave their kids home is doubly so.

Would not attend. Both of theses choices by the bride and groom show that guest attendance is not high on their priority list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are being unreasonable. Leave the kids with the spouse at home. Or leave the kids at the hotel with the spouse for a few hours. I will never understand people who have no trouble sending their kids to daycare or school or who will go out to dinner and leave their kids with the babysitter but insist that for some reason their kids cannot be apart from them for a few hours for a wedding.

Can you read? This is not like going out to dinner. Either OP would be leaving kids and spouse for several days OR their whole family would fly (cost, logistics, disrupted sleep etc) and then she would be ye only one at the wedding.

Destination weddings are a huge inconvenience and this one in particular.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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?!

[Anonymous]

You're nursing, I think it's reasonable to not go.

[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.

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?

NP. Your silly pretense that not inviting people solves the problem entirely.

House is dirty? Burn it down!

See? No more dirt.

FFS.

[Anonymous]

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?

NP. Your silly pretense that not inviting people solves the problem entirely.

House is dirty? Burn it down!

See? No more dirt.

FFS.

LOL, this. "Just don't invite your sister!" "Just RSVP no to your sibling's wedding without even talking about it!" Whaaaat?

[Anonymous]

A nursing mom can’t go to a wedding like this. It’s too bad but it is what it is.