Etiquette Question - wedding invites

Leslie wrote:
I'm glad you've found a way to make it work!

Just a point of etiquette--the ONLY people invited to the wedding are
those whose names are on the invitation. Therefore, if only your name
and that of your husband were on the invitation, then only the two of
you were invited.

Leslie


Hunh. No one told me that when I was getting married. Good thing I put
"and family" on all of them.....

(we had some relatives my husband hadn't seen in 10+ years, and I swear,
a couple he'd never even met!)
--
Cheri Stryker

mom to DS1 - 7 yrs, and DS2 - 3.5 months

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

"KD" wrote in message
ups.com...
Greetings folks:

Just wanting to get some opinions from out there. We've been invited to
a wedding, which it will cost a fair bit for us to go to; car rental,
gas, clothing for me, wedding gift, etc.

Anyhow, we just learned that our five month old isn't welcome at the
reception, not even for just the dinner portion. The baby is
exclusively breastfed, not like I could just leave him with someone.
Even if he weren't, everyone I know in the area will be at the wedding,
there's no one to leave him with.

Question is, is this the norm for weddings? When I got married this
didn't even cross my mind, and I confess it didn't even occur to me
that DS wouldn't be welcome when we got the invite. I always thought
that weddings were a family celebration, and families do include
children. I can't see us spending all this cash to go, when the most
important member of my family isn't welcome.

Well, it's not great etiquette IMO to attempt to separate a breastfeeding
mother and baby, as they should be considered as one unit. If it were me, I
would just politely decline with a simple explanation as to why. It isn't
poor etiquette to be unable to attend a wedding because of a dependant
child.


--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
wrote:
KD wrote:
Greetings folks:

Just wanting to get some opinions from out there. We've been invited to
a wedding, which it will cost a fair bit for us to go to; car rental,
gas, clothing for me, wedding gift, etc.

Anyhow, we just learned that our five month old isn't welcome at the
reception, not even for just the dinner portion. The baby is
exclusively breastfed, not like I could just leave him with someone.
Even if he weren't, everyone I know in the area will be at the wedding,
there's no one to leave him with.

Question is, is this the norm for weddings? When I got married this
didn't even cross my mind, and I confess it didn't even occur to me
that DS wouldn't be welcome when we got the invite. I always thought
that weddings were a family celebration, and families do include
children. I can't see us spending all this cash to go, when the most
important member of my family isn't welcome.

What do you all think?

Some friends of mine got married about 10 years ago and insisted on no
kids. It offended a lot of people but those without kids (me at the
time) couldn't see what the problem was. 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.

Not dim at all, sometimes I don't write clearly. They got married and
then had the naming ceremony straight after, so the baby was there the
whole time. I can't really begin to understand their logic - although
to be fair I do recall now they said it would be ok for William to come
if it wasn't possible to leave him. But from the kind of people they
are we got the feeling it would have been frowned on. In honesty we
weren't upset to miss it.

Jeni

"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

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).

Lots of our friends don't have babies and don't really like them but it
hasn't got in the way of anything so far. Or at least not that I'm
aware. They are all pretty accomodating of all our needs, just not up
for a bit of babysitting. Actually for me the saddest thing is close
family who don't like children. I do feel William will be missing out
as a child, but I think it will improve when this family can
communicate on a more adult level. But then I was never one for babies
either and look what happened. Both dp and I said we never wanted
kids when we met 9 years ago and it took 6 years for us to change our
mind and we don't regret a thing.

Jeni

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
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?

Wow, that's kind of narrow-minded. I am able to maintain relationships with
people who don't have or want kids. I love my kids, but I am definitely able
to have a life outside of them.
--
Sue (mom to three girls)

Anne Rogers wrote:

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 dunno... Before I had children, I had
friends who had children, but I certainly
did not want to hear them screech at a
wedding. For me, one has no bearing on
the other. I certainly have friends who
do not have children and I try not to
inflict my children on them.

-- Anita --

"Sue" wrote in message
news:b9adnfyqvMHkpCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
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?

Wow, that's kind of narrow-minded. I am able to maintain relationships
with
people who don't have or want kids. I love my kids, but I am definitely
able
to have a life outside of them.

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! If I worked, then I could definitely imagine
having friends who weren't into children, as I presume my husband does, but
myself I have limited opportunities to meet people, other than those who
also have children.

Anne

It's definitely not poor etiquette to decline, and as other people have
said, it's not even poor etiquette to explain to good friends the
details of your decline (and they might even say, "OH, please come with
the baby!!"). BUT, it's also not poor etiquette to invite someone and
not invite their baby, just as it's not poor etiquette to invite your
elderly great-aunt who lives across the country, can't fly out because
of physical limitations, and thus automatically can't come anymore than
an exclusively breastfeeding mom.

Unfortunately, too many weddings can be fraught with unrealistic and
selfish expectations, on the part of the bride/groom, parents, *and*
guests. Mind you, I'm definitely not saying that not wanting to be
separated from your breastfeeding baby is selfish! 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 (before children), and that it's not always because of
a great conspiracy against nursing motherhood. IMO, wanting to have
an adults-only wedding falls into the non-nefarious category.

Em
mama to Micah, 11/14/04

Mum of Two wrote:

Well, it's not great etiquette IMO to attempt to separate a breastfeeding
mother and baby, as they should be considered as one unit. If it were me, I
would just politely decline with a simple explanation as to why. It isn't
poor etiquette to be unable to attend a wedding because of a dependant
child.


--
Amy
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
http://www.freewebs.com/carlos2002/
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/a/ana%5Fj%5F2004/
My blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/querer-hijo-querer-hija/

Anne Rogers wrote:
"Sue" wrote in message
news:b9adnfyqvMHkpCPZnZ2dnUVZ_vadnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
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?

Wow, that's kind of narrow-minded. I am able to maintain relationships
with
people who don't have or want kids. I love my kids, but I am definitely
able
to have a life outside of them.

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.

Mary Ann

If I worked, then I could definitely imagine
having friends who weren't into children, as I presume my husband does, but
myself I have limited opportunities to meet people, other than those who
also have children.



Anne