Etiquette Question - wedding invites

Anne Rogers wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...

Anne Rogers wrote:


if they still don't want you there, then are these people really your
friends?

It's not them that the friends don't want there, it's the baby. I don't
think feeling that way has to be mutually exclusive with being friends.
Some people just aren't baby people. That doesn't mean they can't be
friends with people who are.


hmm, if my friends aren't able to tolerate babies then they aren't my
friends, because how would I have been able to substain the friendship over
the last 3+ years? I suppose in the first year after the birth it would have
been a possiblilty to have some friends that did't like babies, but with 2
children, whilst I'd like to think I can have a conversation that isn't
about babies, it just isn't substainable to still be friends after this
length of time. (As it happens, I cannot think of any friends I have "lost"
since having children).

And there is a difference between understanding and not, if they say "I
understand, but for this day I'd rather you all didn't come" that is rather
difference to "I can't see why you can't just find a sitter...."

Anne


I am with you on this one Anne. I am mother, wife, woman, family member.
My family comes first. I don't see my children as an infliction or
disease. If they are too young to attend an event, then as a family we
do not go. I tend to only meet people who have families as well, but
have run into others who do not and they understand that we are a family
unit.

These are not sacrifices, but facing that life is now different and
there are different things that families can do together.

The top three schools of thought toward parenting are family centered,
where the family is the entity, parent centered, where the parents put
themselves first and the children are an afterthought, and child
centered, where the children come first.

Not saying one is better than the other, but one style might be better
for one parent and family than another.

We tend to do the family centered parenting where we focus all of our
activities and our lifestyle to what fits all members of our family so
that no one has to feel slighted. I did the parent rules the house with
my older children and saw in many ways it just wasn't working for our
family.

I am not missing out on anything in life. I wouldn't attend the wedding,
even if the baby was invited, just for the fact I think it is
overwhelming for the little one.

Jo

I suppose it depends on what you do with your time, I don't know what
would
have happened if a close friends had not liked children, because I
haven't
had to cross that bridge. But as a SAHM I haven't had chance to meet
anyone
who doesn't have children!

What about the friends you had before you had children? Most of the
weddings we go to are of family and friends who we have known for many,
many years. I can also easily envisage being invited to a wedding of
friends I have in the choir I sing in, many of whom are older and have
finished having their family or have no children and perhaps want a
grown-up affair. I was in the choir before kids, took a long time off,
and joined again when DS was 3.

As I said, I don't think I've lost any. I suppose there are people on the
periphery who I am no longer in touch with, but that is more by each person
moving on than by me having a baby. I suppose the one thing that for me
might have equated to choir was rowing, but then I didn't invite any of them
to my wedding and vice versa, I'm not much in touch with anyone from there
anymore, simply because of time, rowers are busy people and the ones I was
closest too I am still a little bit in touch with by email. I think the
difference for me is that I had my children young, so though we were the
first amongst our friends, that made it a novelty. If I look at our wedding
photo all the friends on their are still friends now, some are the
children's godparents.

I can imagine that if I had been doing an activity such as a choir long
term, there would be a difference, but then perhaps I wouldn't be calling
them my friends, there is one thing you learn if you loose you health, you
find out who your friends are.

Anne

"Workingmom" wrote in message
...
Anne Rogers skrev:
Sadly it happens, that if the parents of both bride and groom disapprove
of the match and the couple want to get married straight away, they often
have little choice.

Or just plain don't want to spend more money on that specific celebration
than on any other celebration (birthday etc).

On the other hand - they shouldn't expect presents, then.

yeah, and again, they didn't, I've been to many weddings where presents are
not expected, to the extent that in the circles I move, it would be off not
to put a note in with the invite saying that your presence at the wedding is
present enough!

The group I mainly move in is evangelical christian, which probably sheds a
different light on things, most of my friends could not honestly stand
before a minister and have them say the standard introduction to a wedding,
talking about the gift of children and then say no children at the wedding.
With the weddings I've been to since having chidren, I've never taken both
of them and I've only once taken one of them to the whole thing, got to
consider them too!

Anne

But part of
choosing to have a baby (and part of choosing to breastfeed, come to
think of it) is recognizing that you may not be able to do everything
you could do BC

sorry, I'm with you on the whole BC thing, but whilst not breastfeeding does
give a certain sense of freedom and not needing to be there at every feed,
you are still the childs mother (parents), I don't know how to phrase this,
but by adding on the choice of choosing breastfeeding it seems like
breastfeeding is a bonus when really we should assume it is the norm, I know
that it isn't, but unless you act like it is, it is unlikely to become so. I
think therefore that if I decided to talk through such an issue with the
bride or groom, I would initially just cite the baby, not the breastfeeding
and hope that it dawned on them what I was on about!

Anne

there is one thing you learn if you loose you health, you
find out who your friends are.

Anne



So sad, but so true.

Anne Rogers wrote:
It was the fact that she outwardly told us to bring a variety of lunch
meats - about $60 worth, and I think of it like this - DH takes sandwiches
to work, I go to the deli and get about $3-$4 worth of lunch meats for him
on a weekly basis. HE said alright, I'll bring the meat. I said are you
insane??

hmm, I've not been to one, but I have heard of weddings that are bring and
share meals, and usually it's not that they've paid for other things, they
are likely to be using a church hall that has not been charged for and have
had to pay the bare minimum of expenses.

Sadly it happens, that if the parents of both bride and groom disapprove of
the match and the couple want to get married straight away, they often have
little choice.

They could choose not to have a party that they can't pay for. A choice
you don't like is still a choice.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Anne Rogers wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote in message
...
Anne Rogers wrote:

if they still don't want you there, then are these people really your
friends?
It's not them that the friends don't want there, it's the baby. I don't
think feeling that way has to be mutually exclusive with being friends.
Some people just aren't baby people. That doesn't mean they can't be
friends with people who are.

hmm, if my friends aren't able to tolerate babies then they aren't my
friends, because how would I have been able to substain the friendship over
the last 3+ years?

There's a difference between "Damn, it's ages since I've seen X - I
don't know when we'll have a chance to get in touch", and "This person
is no longer my friend." If the bride and groom don't want the OP's
baby at their wedding then that may mean that they'll find they can't
stay in touch and will drift apart as time goes by, but it doesn't mean
that they aren't her friends *now*.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

PattyMomVA wrote:
"Sarah Vaughan" wrote and I snipped:
wrote:
This year some friends got
married and again no kids. The difference was they had a baby one month
older than ds (about 9 months IIRC) who was going to have her naming
ceremony at the same time.
Sorry if I'm being dim, but I'm kind of lost here - does this mean that
she was an exception to the 'no kids' rule, or that her parents were off
getting married somewhere instead of attending her naming ceremony? Both
sound (in different ways) incredibly self-centred.

We had a "no kids" wedding with the exception of DH's DD. She was 6 1/2,
and she was a flower girl. I cannot see why you'd think this is
self-centered.

Well, deciding you don't want kids at a wedding is more of a general
decision. Even though a lot of people in this thread seem to be taking
it personally, there actually isn't anything personal about "I just want
a child-free day". It's a general preference. But deciding that you're
fine with kids being there as long as they're your own kids, and it's
just other people's you don't want - that's different, because that's no
longer a general preference for child-free-ness.

I would also say that I can see reasons for making an exception for a
six-and-a-half-year-old that I can't see apply for a ten-month-old. I
don't know what your reason was for making the decision you did, but I
can see that a child that age would be so hurt and disappointed by being
excluded from the wedding that it would start family life off on a
terrible footing, and that that might take priority even over the
feelings of your wedding guests; and also that you might feel OK about
having a child old enough that you know she can be counted on to behave
and not charge around getting into everything, but not necessarily about
opening the doors to children of any age. Neither of those reasons
applies to the baby the OP was talking about.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

emilymr wrote:

OK, point taken. You're right; I can't think of anywhere that you
can take a baby where you can't also breastfeed. (Or rather, where you
*shouldn't* also be able to breastfeed!! Since apparently some people
believe the Y and airplanes are such places... :P)

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04

The ironic thing is, breastfed babies (provided mom's wardrobe is
cooperative) tend to be quieter/more easy to soothe (well, infants,
anyway) than bottlefed. At least that's been my experience comparing
mine to other babes.
--
Cheri Stryker

mom to DS1 - 7 yrs, and DS2 - almost 5 months

Check out my new breastfeeding T-shirts on CafePress!
http://www.cafepress.com/dancingbones

"Cheri Stryker" wrote in message
The ironic thing is, breastfed babies (provided mom's wardrobe is
cooperative) tend to be quieter/more easy to soothe (well, infants,
anyway) than bottlefed. At least that's been my experience comparing
mine to other babes.

?? hmm, I've never known the difference and is usually because of the
temperment of the child. And definitely not so in my family.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)