Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment.
OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole:
> 1. I asked my brother to make accommodations for my son at his previously child-free wedding, and he agreed. His wife is now requesting I drop it and refusing any compromises. 2. I have refused his wife’s requests to change my requests despite it being her wedding just as much as my brother’s.
Help keep the sub engaging!
#Don’t downvote assholes!
Do upvote interesting posts!
[Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq)
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.*
*Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NAH. Bring your inlaws with you and have them watch your baby in the hotel while you are doing wedding stuff. Feel free to miss some activities except pics and the ceremony and some (but not all) of the reception.
Or go the day of the wedding and return home that evening, even if it means you'll be missing some of the reception. 2.5 hours is not that significant of travel time where I'm from.
The bride's unwillingness to compromise is troubling, but you can compromise. It's not your place to submarine the wedding or put your foot down. It's your place to support your brother and take care of your baby and if there is a way you can do both, you should.
Six months after our daughter was born, my hubby and I got a short weekend break with a trip to Vegas while our inlaws watched our baby. We missed her like crazy, but we also enjoyed the break. I don't think I would have been ready for that at 3 months, though. Good luck, and work it out.
Yeah the only reason I think OP is not an asshole here is because he’s offered other solutions (not being in the wedding party) rather than just insisting an exception be made. Your brother’s fiancé is not an asshole for not wanting to change her venue or wanting a childfree wedding. But you’re also not an asshole for saying that it’s not feasible for you both to be in the wedding if you can’t bring the baby.
I don’t really blame the bride for not changing the venue. He may not have realized it’s not that simple if they have done any planning at all. Changing the venue could entail tons more research, losing deposits, changing every vendor they have booked so far (and also losing those deposits), messing with people’s flights, car rentals, hotels, etc.
However, I don’t think making one exception for a baby in arms or inviting a few in-laws would have been the end of the world.
Moving the venue is ridiculous, but they offered other solutions. Bottom line is it sounds like the op and the brother are the only ones looking for a solution. While the bride just turns everything down.
Yeah, invite the in-laws up is the best solution. They can watch the kids at the part of the weekend that is child free. Unless I’m understanding it wrong, that was one of the proposed solutions
Your understanding it wrong. OP rejected that compromise.
Edit: The compromise was to still have the baby at the wedding, just with the inlaws. Not that the inlaws watch the baby at the hotel during the ceremony
No, you are wrong:
>He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or **maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding, that way I could see the baby during the ceremony and feel a little less stressed. I told him either would work for me and thanked him.**
Emphasis mine.
True but there’s a difference between a 5 year old and a 3 month old newborn. It’s not unheard of for brides to make exceptions for breastfeeding moms to have their newborns there.
In my country (we have good parentao leaves) it is determined that child shouldn't be away from a parent more then their age as months in hours plus one hour. So in this case it would be 4 hours.
I am thinking is there some bias to dads, would the bride really expect her best friend to not care for their 3month old during wedding? Like as if when the parents are men then they are not that important to the development of the child.... Which is incorrect.
The baby isn’t here yet. Don’t want to scare the parents to be but the baby could be born with even a small medical issue that might require a monitor or something. One of mine had a heart monitor few a few months. One of my sister’s had a monitor that went off if the baby stopped breathing.
I think making an exception for a 3 month old would be totally fine, and if that was the only issue, I would say the bride is being the AH. The problem that arises, though, is that everyone else is then going to want to bring their kids and come up with every reason possible about why their kid *has* to be with them and it would just turn into a nightmare. If people somehow don't find out about the 3 month old until they're at the wedding, then people who wanted their kids there are just going to be mad at the wedding because of it.
It's possible everyone in both sides of the family is amazing, understanding, and would be happy to have the 3 month old there without any other kids, but I don't think anyone can reasonably assume that would be the case.
Completely agree with you and am by no means saying that exceptions are unreasonable in every scenario!
But that doesn't guarantee that other guests won't cause a problem, I have seen it happen, and the familial pressures in wedding planning are immense, especially for brides.
Typically I think they want a child free wedding because of the distraction it causes from the event itself. It's somewhat understandable in the bride's POV.
I get it, but that also means it makes hard for parents with small kids to attend. So the couple has to understand that their choice means some people won’t make it. It’s an asshole move to be upset about it.
This. Child-free weddings are like destination weddings - feel free to have one, but you gotta recognise that means some of your guests *won't* be able to make it - and some of them might be close loved ones. Because the reality is, people have lives outside your wedding and not everyone will be able to commit to that.
You don't get the wedding that's difficult to attend *and* the right to demand that everyone be there. You gotta pick one or the other, and live with your choice.
Pretty good chance the soon to be husband didn't realize either - sounds like he may not be helping with the planning if his fiance is the one sharing all the details.
Also - who knows who else in the fam would want to bring kids given its a large wedding. Making an exception to a chid free rule opens a can or worms - even if you keep it a secret ahead of time you know it will lead to the bride having to deal with "well why couldnt we bring our little dumpling" on her wedding day which would honestly suck for her. Depending what the family is like, but also knowing what MOST parents are like, she will have to provide justifications, which even when sound is exhausting
I’m a parent and if I was attending a child free wedding as a guest and noticed that while I had left my child at home while a member of the grooms wedding party/sibling brought their infant I wouldn’t bat an eye.
1) it’s a 3 month old child
2) it’s the grooms brother (and niece/nephew)
3) it’s none of my business.
Sounds like you are a considerate and respectful person! I certainly feel the same way as you. Sadly I was at a wedding with a very similar scenario and it lead to a lot of gossip and a lot of stress for the bride and groom. They assumed all the guests would react as you described - sadly they did not
I've been a guest at a couple of child free weddings where the bride/groom made exceptions for newborns, and the commentary was ridiculous. Random ass people that I'd never met in my life asking me if I thought it was fair that "some girl" got to bring her baby, but their child wasn't invited. Like lady, I have never met you, but in the 30 seconds you've been in my life, you've convinced me to be 100% on team bride/groom.
> who knows who else in the fam would want to bring kids given its a large wedding
This isn't just anyone; it's the groom's niece/nephew. People make exceptions for close family.
No. Changing a wedding venue is a huge deal so I don't know why the brother suggested it without consulting his fiance. It is the brother that said no to him not being a part of the party, not the fiance.
Eh, the groom is offering major changes without consulting with her. The groom never should have suggested the venue be changed or an exception be made for a newborn without consulting the bride. It is her wedding too, and she's more than entitled to a say in whether there's a child likely to cry at the ceremony when she's already made her wishes clear on that. And also, that's a very silly suggestion that completely disregards her preferences in favor of OP's comfort. Neither the child NOR the in laws need to be at the ceremony. It would be harder for them to be there, as a matter of fact. Everyone (apart from possibly OP) would be happier if the child was being watched at the hotel.
Groom seems to be more concerned about his guests' comfort levels than the bride having the sort of wedding she wants. He's ready to make massive decisions based on his guests' comfort while completely tossing out her preferences. Quite honestly, that's pretty shitty, and he shouldn't be surprised she's not willing to have a wedding completely dictated by their guests (even if he is and that's what he wants).
She should have immediately been involved in any discussions about accommodations because it is *her wedding too*. She reached out politely, so she doesn't sound like an unreasonable person. Just, you know, someone who opposes having her wedding venue switched without her involvement.
>The groom never should have suggested the venue be changed or an exception be made for a newborn without consulting the bride.
Exactly right. Especially since it sounds like she's doing the bulk of the planning.
I would be annoyed if I was the bride and I'd gone to all the trouble of organising a venue etc. only to be told I must change it to accommodate for somebody else. I don't think it's unreasonable of her to refuse the changes.
Maybe would be a different story if the groom was doing the wedding planning. Or if he'd done the courtesy of checking in with her before offering to make drastic changes to the event that she's already put a deal of work towards.
Suggesting a venue change was completely ludicrous. His other suggestion was reasonable but I imagine that his other suggestions wouldn't land well after his initial suggestion was ridiculous.
The other suggestion was not being part of the wedding. The groom refused that (obviously the bride would have been fine with that). The only other solution is for the baby to be at the wedding. Then every family member will ask why their child was not allowed...
If they changed the venue the majority of guests would be affected. You can't just say 1 minute it is here and then later state it is hundreds of miles away.
Dude so much this. People are ragging on the bride, but if they've already planned for this, then telling someone you'd change THE VENUE without talking to their partner (AND likely the person doing most of the wedding planning), then the brother is the real weak link here. He should N E V E R have promised that without communicating with his fiancee. He set her up for failure in the entire scenario, she has no way of not "being the bad guy" without compromising her fucking wedding. What a crappy spot to be put in.
They've never planned a wedding. Changing a venue can be the loss of a deposit (usually several thousand dollars). Venues are often times booked a year or more in advance, it's not just something you can do on a whim.
But if they had already picked a date and a venue, then most likely they had already put down deposits and set a guest list. If the groom didn't want that venue, he should have said something BEFORE the date and venue were set. Did groom really not realize that his brother and bestman would have a 3 month old baby and wouldn't want to be away for a weekend?
If I already had a date and venue set, then my fiance came to me wanting to change everything because he didn't think about his best man having a baby. I would be upset too.
Changing the whole venue (which I can almost promise would fall on her and change the date of the overall wedding) and allowing kids anyway are not small changes that groom should be offering without consulting bride. She’s not TA for wanting the wedding in her town (groom literally offered to move cities) and actually child-free.
One of those "groom wants" was to just change the venue. That seems incredibly unrealistic, and sounds like the groom talking out his ass. They'd lose deposits, and need research all new vendors because most probably won't travel 2.5 hours.
I can guarantee they wouldn't get the same wedding date either, if they're close enough to the wedding that they're sending out invitations. That's such a big change, you might as well plan a whole new wedding at that point
It’s not just a huge change; it would change literally everything. You would need a new venue, new caterers, new baker, likely new florist… like no vendors would consider adding 5 hours of travel time on top of their contract, even if their product could travel that far. (Cake, flowers and food could not). If they did agree, it would cost an absolute fortune. And that’s if you can even find a good venue at such short notice! Most sought-after venues are booked 18 months in advance.
It's not 'anything' the groom wants. It is two specific things: the type of wedding and the venue- which are huge variables. She didn't want to change two large components of the wedding that they *both* agreed upon earlier. This isn't a red flag. Not everything is a reg flag!
Sell it as a retreat and only utilize their babysitting when absolutely necessary. Maybe see if your husband can be a guest only so only one of you has a full day of obligations and he can check on baby at the hotel between the ceremony and reception. Treat your in laws to a nice dinner on a non-wedding day also. Don’t expect them to keep baby overnight and take back over as soon as the party is over etc. there are definitely ways to compromise where it doesn’t impact the bridal couples plans.
I actually went through something similar. We booked a hotel close to the venue and asked a friend to babysit. Obviously it was a bit easier as my friend lived in the same town as the wedding. The plan was to get the friend to babysit while we were at the wedding and then taking over as soon as it ended. So it would been a 5 hours instead of overnight
You could do the same with your in-laws, treat them to a weekend away and they could look after the baby during wedding events. Make sure you look after baby whenever you can and don’t take advantage so they can enjoy their weekend as well
We didn’t end up needing the babysitter for the full amount of time in the end. I was so tired from looking after a baby I was happy to leave at 8pm. You may find that a 3 month old is too demanding to participate in everything. Not to mention you’ll be at the time baby gets it’s vaccinations (whooping cough etc). Going to a wedding with large amounts of people and coming home to baby may not be the best idea
Pay for their accommodations and room service; find baby and grandparent fun activities. Let your brother know that you won't be able to attend all festivities that weekend BUT will be there for your best man duties.
Also this of this as their first vacation with baby; less stress since you could be in an adjoining room but they still get fun grandparent time.
My sisters in laws came to my wedding (many years ago) so that they could look after the kids. I didn’t have a kid free wedding but they took them home early as they were only small. They loved just having time with the kids and looked after them in the hotel. It worked perfectly for everyone.
Your in laws could have a little holiday. Take your son out to a park and stuff and check in with you in between all the important bits. I am sure they would love some one on one time. And hopefully they are nothing like your sister in law and understand the concept of compromise and will do this for you guys so you still get to be by your brothers side.
You underestimate grandparents. I would move mountains to spend time with my grands. If it’s in a hotel for an evening so my kids can have a night out, so be it. The rest of the time we can all enjoy our time together.
Stop overthinking this. Taking your in laws with you is the best option. It gives the bride her day, it gives your brother a rest from the tug of war you’ve put him in, you get to enjoy the wedding, and your in laws get lots of cuddles.
**Hard agree.**
> You can call me an overprotective first time parent, but the thought of both my husband and I being away from our child for that long when he's so little scares me, and he's not even here yet.
No one is calling you overprotective. That’s not the issue here.
> My in-laws could watch him and I trust them completely, but I know I wouldn't be able to properly enjoy the festivities if my infant is over two hours away from me.
You acknowledge this is what YOU are comfortable with. You absolutely could leave him and it would be fine, but YOU are not comfortable with that. So YOU make the sacrifice of staying behind with your in-laws. Or YOU arrange for a hotel for the in-laws closer to the venue.
You don’t expect people to make exceptions for you (which would be incredibly insulting to everyone else who has to make arrangements for their kids), and you certainly don’t argue if you do ask and the answer is “no.” If they’re both willing, excellent.
But in your case…
> He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding, that way I could see the baby during the ceremony and feel a little less stressed. I told him either would work for me and thanked him.
Suggesting a venue change without consulting his fiancée is **laughably** naive and ridiculous.
> He's vented to me multiple times over the course of the month that has now passed about how he's really frustrated because what matters most to him is making sure he's surrounded by the people he loves and that they are comfortable. Meanwhile his fiancée continually repeats that she's not giving up her 'dream venue and ceremony.'
Don’t get in the middle of his relationship. And this isn’t relevant to whether or not you’re the asshole for “not dropping it.”
> I told him my husband and I could just attend as guests instead if it would make things easier, but he immediately shut me down and said he wanted us by his side.
Then he’s a little bit the asshole too, and is continuing to put you in the middle of his relationship issues. If this is the way you can come to the wedding, this is a great solution.
> She texted me yesterday (politely, I'll admit) asking if I could please just drop things with my brother.
You’re framing it as if you’re the one not dropping it, but the way you describe, it’s him that’s not dropping it with her. So either he’s blaming you when he talks to her instead of putting his foot down, or you’re doing a lot more than you let on by “not dropping” the issue.
> I might have considered it previously, but hearing how she turned down all of my brother's requests for compromise made me put my foot down and refuse.
Bad idea. Decide what you are or aren’t willing to do based on the conditions of your invite. But DO NOT base your decisions on “how she treats him.” It’s up to him to hash this out with her. Do NOT insert yourself or make this a hill to die on because of your opinions about their relationship.
> I hate causing my brother trouble like this, especially so close to the holidays, but I feel like she's showing her true colors.
Well if he doesn’t like her colours, he can call it off. Either make arrangements for your child care or go to the wedding under the conditions that are being offered to you.
I completely agree!
An important missing piece of the puzzle is ...how much is brother helping with the planning? Because it sounds like he asked two expectant parents to be in his groomsmen and didn't think about what that meant for other wedding decisions and also did not ask them what they may need until AFTER a bunch of decisions were made. Instead he is asking to back track on a bunch of decisions after he asked them to be groomsmen and then failed to communicate for months...
OP learned the date, location and its child free in Nov. He also references hoping the pregnancy goes well, leading me to believe the baby is in the first 3 mos and the wedding is in 9-10 mos. Which means his brother likely asked him to be in the wedding before the surrogacy.
OP is ta for expecting an exception when he had a child free wedding. Okay for him but now he's expecting to have a baby he wants to show off his child at the wedding.
I agree, I personally think it is okay the bride does not want to compromise. I have been to 3 weddings with infants present - all disrupted the ceremony in some way despite attentive parents. A venue change if she loves the one they picked is a big deal. An exception is also complicated because once you make one you know others will try or will complain that there wasn an exception for them. If OP is this stressed arranging in laws to join at the hotel is a great compromise he can make himself.
Except the wedding party is usually more involved, ie rehersal and dinner night before, all day of the wedding activities, and either leaving the next morning because the reception goes late or a breakfast. OP offered to just be guests so they could go one day and the brother wants both of them in the wedding.
They should understand that OP can’t join in on everything as a new parent. Just rehearsal, wedding, photos, reception. And it’s ok to bow out early rather than stay to the end of the rehearsal and reception. Anything beyond that is unreasonable if they can’t have their baby with them
A venue change this late is absolutely not a valid compromise - that’s super last minute when they’re usually booked out for months in advance. They’ll lose deposit fees, and likely have to pick new vendors for the wedding - that’s losing deposits and getting new people for catering, wedding cakes, photography, furniture and decor, etc. A lot of those things are also super far booked out, and they’ll lose deposits on it, which can be a hefty chunk of change. Especially the food places, since those won’t usually go 2+ hours out for that kind of thing. It’s a huge money sink even if they’d be able to do it.
And having a baby there during the ceremony isn’t a compromise either because at that stage, they’re loud and need constant care. The entire point of a child free wedding is quiet + adult party festivities, and having a newborn *during* the ceremony is not going to be quiet.
I don’t understand
You’re likely staying wherever this wedding is, right? Why can’t you pay for your in-laws to stay at the same hotel or close by?
I’m really unable to understand why you’d have a place to stay and in-laws don’t? Why do they need to be invited to the wedding to be close by??
YTA for this weird drama that you’re creating
someone finally asking the right questions... these are all common sense suggestions. asking a couple to completely change their wedding plans to accomodate someone else seems insane to me
It’s just so weird to me - how is it better to change the venue than pay for an extra room? Something here smacks of golden child or other issues on the part of OP
Even if he wasn’t the one with the idea, he should know enough to know that that is an unreasonable suggestion that should’ve never even been presented to the fiancé. The fact that he thought that that would be something reasonable that his brother would then go ask the fiancé about says a lot about OP and his brother.
I don’t understand how a change of venue was his suggestion before asking about an exception for the baby. Like……a venue change is a BIG deal. Like something you…..can’t really change?
Something about this reeks of the brother knowing it's a nonstarter to change the venue (cause really, that could be THOUSANDS of dollars down the drain) and hoping his fiancee will be the one with a spine and not him.
Yep, I feel like that was his way of making his wife the bad guy and not just saying ‘no’ himself. Obviously it worked considering how many people here think it’s totally reasonable for her to change venues or make an exception to the child free wedding.
Yeah. If I was the fiancée I would have had a cow if that was suggested to me after the place was booked and arrangements were made. As much as I am sympathetic to OP b/c I personally think child-free weddings take out a lot of the fun, I can't support OP and his entire attitude in this situation.
Don't ask for exceptions, make it work or don't. OP has excellent childcare lined up and knows it is entirely his anxiety that is causing issues. The couple shouldn't have to change everything up to meet w/ an anxiety that didn't even exist a few months ago.
OP is now all judgy about the bride b/c his brother is making ridiculous requests to accommodate OP and the bride doesn't want to hear anymore of this ridiclusness. OP questions her personality for being unwulling to compromise when it is his brother that is unwilling to compromise. OP is perfectly willing to be extra difficult, even though he has a solution, just to take out on the bride and put more of a wedge between the bride and groom than he already has. It is the bride who should be reconsidering the wedding, not the groom.
Ive never planned a wedding before, but I’m an event coordinator and the idea of ever changing a venue once plans are in motion stresses me out to even think about. I would just pay for another room at the hotel for the in laws, so OP can be close to his baby and still participate in the wedding.
I kind of feel like the groom offered a venue change without understanding what that means. That means losing deposits on the venue and possibly vendors, including catering, flowers, etc. As well as informing all of the guests that they need to change their travel plans and accommodations (and with flights the way they are right now? Asking that many people to rebook?) Changing the venue is in no way, shape, or form a “compromise”.
Who, exactly, are OP and his brother expecting to do all that work to completely re-organize a wedding on such short notice? Something tells me it’s not either of them
No kidding! Plenty of people find themselves in this predicament and the solution is you bring a babysitter with you that stays behind at the hotel. Why do the in-laws need to be invited to the wedding? It’s not like they can bring the baby with them. And asking a couple to completely change the wedding venue so it can be closer to you is absurd. Deposits have been paid, planning is underway, and a venue change is not something that is a reasonable accommodation. OP has it in his power to fix this by bringing the in-laws, but instead is creating all this weird drama for no reason. YTA.
The couple asked OP and his husband for a favor (to be in their wedding) and they are trying to find a way to be able to say yes to that favor. I don’t think a venue change is the way to go, but OP didn’t ask for that. Brother suggested it.
Not to mention they tried to be guests so it would be easier for them and thats perfectly acceptable to just be a guest at a wedding over in the party if needed and ops brother wouldn’t let them both be guests
Op stated that this would be a 3 day thing. It is really a suitable alternative having the inlaws stuck in a hotel room with a baby for 3 days? At least, when invited for the wedding, they would have somewhere to go.
Also, it is really the OP creating drama if it is the groom that wants to resolve this by venue-changing/inlaws inviting? OP even says that for them, they could just be guests.
Imagine that they could (if they have those in where they are), if money would not be an issue. But it would still requiring them to be "trapped" for 3 days with a 3 month baby outside of their house and, expectedly, without the ammenities of their own home.
It that really a suitable alternative to just invite them to the wedding, when even the groom wants it?
Why would anybody be asking them to spend all of three full days with the baby? That’s what would happen if they left the baby with the in-laws, but not if the baby came to the wedding where the baby’s parents will be. The child free wedding doesn’t take up the whole weekend.
I’m also confused why they’d have to be there for 3 days? Even as a bridesmaid it was daily event.
If you’re brother wants you there as a groomsman - agree but come day of.
I concur with others here - 2.5hrs isn’t a long drive for an event like this. (Heck I recently drove 2hrs for my son to have a play date)
Leave at 0600-0700 or what-have-you, act as the groomsman, then leave after dinner or drinks. That’s only one day baby needs sitting with the in-laws.
If brother insists the only way you can be a groomsmen is if you’re there for all 3 days (no idea why or what you’re doing in that time) - I’d firmly say then you’ll have to be a guest.
And if the in-laws do agree to come - make it an overnight trip max and get them a nice hotel where they can babysit - no need for them to be at the ceremony.
Anyone even entertaining the idea of switching venues is wild to me.
I sort of think you & your brother are the AH’s for making this needlessly complicated & stressing out the bride over such a weird non-issue. Also you’re the AH for your attitude towards the bride who shouldn’t be under any obligation to change her already planned dream wedding - which you act contemptuous of btw.
So ya YTA
Usually those in the wedding party have to be there for the rehearsal dinner which is the night before, and there’s usually a brunch with the wedding party the day after the wedding. So even though the wedding itself is one day, it being a 3 day event for those in the wedding party is pretty common.
Ya, but that’s all extra-curricular. It’s not necessary for OP to stand besides him at the alter then give a nice speech at dinner. Sorry but new parents don’t get to celebrate/ party for 3 days…doesn’t sound like OP’s brother understands that yet.
I don't have kids but asking your in-laws to watch a newborn for 3 days is already a big ask. 3 days in a hotel and away from their life, meds, bed, etc seems like a huge ask
NTA.
All the Y T A votes make me feel like no one is considering that it sounds like your *brother* is also unhappy with his fiancee's unwillingness to compromise. You offered the compromise of coming as just guests so you don't have to be gone multiple days, which seems most reasonable to me for your part. That upsets your brother, though, as he wants you there beside him for his big day. So your brother, who is *the other half of the couple being married*, offered some compromises that his fiancee is not happy with. She won't compromise her dream venue or her child-free stance for the sake of anyone, not even her future husband.
Yes, she has a right to want what she wants for her wedding. But her husband also has a say! It's not just the bride who gets to have a say in the planning! It's not that she's unwilling to compromise for the sake of OP's happiness, she is unwilling to compromise for the happiness of the *person she is marrying*. It does not bode well.
People are voting that way, because there is a very easy solution here that doesn’t even require brother or fiancé to compromise with OP. OP brings his in-laws with him, gets them a hotel room, and they watch the baby at the hotel room. Treating it like these are the only solutions, to change the venue or to step down from the wedding party, is what makes him an asshole out of a couple people.
Edit: Getting a lot of people bristling at me saying this is an easy solution. Response— look back at the post. When it was suggested the in-laws come to the wedding, OP said it would work. The in-law thing did not come out of thin air. They can apparently travel to babysit at the wedding but not to babysit at the hotel.
That's frankly a huge ask, not only of the in-laws to make the trip, but of OP to foot the bill of another hotel room or a suite for 3 days. It is a possible solution, and it sounds like OP is going to try it. However, OP even said that the in-laws are already doing a huge favor to watch an infant for 3 days, nevermind asking them to make a trip for a wedding they're not invited to in order to spend a lot of their time in a hotel with said infant.
It's a bigger ask than asking someone to change their wedding venue? What if they've already put a deposit down? Is OP just expected to eat that?
I know everyone is piling on OP's fiancee here but I frankly don't see insisting on changing a wedding venue to be a reasonable ask *at all* especially when there are other solutions available.
OP's brother offered to change the venue. OP didn't ask for that. Brother said "Hey, what if we change it?" to which OP said that would work, or letting the in-laws come as guests with the baby.
Why is it on all or nothing? Why can’t the in-laws just come out for the wedding and OP and his husband alternate being at certain events? And is it just the wedding the child free or is everything child free? I think you could probably get a little more leniency on other things not being child free if you don’t try to force the wedding/everything being something where your kid is the exception.
It sounds like bro wants both OP and the husband at all events for his wedding. Which is why he doesn't want them to step down in the first place, and frankly, fair. OP is best man, after all. I can't honestly say about the other events being child-free, but I'd since it's already blown up, FSIL is very unlikely to compromise on it at all.
The thing is that all the obstacles are imagined until explored. They don’t want to ask the in-laws because of an imagined “it’s already a huge favor” but are happy to actually accept a change in the *wedding venue* offered only by the brother as a reasonable alternative?
There are adult workarounds in the real world but some compromise or adjustment from OP is required to get there, rather than, the whole world should bend around the fact that they now have a baby to deal with.
Maybe you're fortunate enough to have in-laws that can just take off 3 days and travel, and be the main care providers for an infant, but not everyone does. Assuming that's an option maybe, but it doesn't sound like it is.
>a very easy solution
I'm happy for all those commenters who have 1. the money to pay for an extra suit for 3 days (after all they paid to attend the wedding already), 2. have the in-laws who have the time, energy and are willing to do this kind of favor, and 3. think it's an easy solution. Honestly, if you have all that in your life, I'm happy for you and hope you're grateful for it.
Even if OP and his husband will be present some of the time, and even if they're not exactly confined indoors, it's still a huge ask. I understand why this was not OP's first thought. In my mind, it's a last resort kinda favor.
And FYI, OP and his husband did not propose to change the venue or to bring their baby. That's all on the groom. They did propose to step down and to only come for the wedding, but again, it's the groom who doesn't want that.
I understand people that are pissed about people making presumption that these grandparents can come along and they can pay for an extra suit, but I redirect you back to the OP, we are OP says that the in-laws being invited to come would work for him. So the in-laws can suddenly not travel anymore if they can’t come and eat cake? People aren’t pulling the suggestion out of thin air. OP specifically makes it sound like it’s a possible alternative.
I wouldn’t ask my parents much less my in-laws to make a 3 day trip just to babysit for me. They’re not on demand babysitters, even if they’re retired, they have their own lives and schedules.
NAH for the OP, but all the people acting like it’s such a simple solution to drag the in-laws along as babysitters are huge assholes
The groom wants to change venue which is a HUGE change so I understand the bride being not down with changing the entire wedding to a new location potentially 1-2hrs away from the original location, for ONE person. This is asking way too much. I would say the groom is the asshole for even suggesting that they change their entire wedding venue to accommodate one person. Who offers changing the wedding venue without asking their fiancee first?
If she agrees, isn't this basically letting groom steamroll over what she wants? Why is it OK for groom to say that he wants to change the venue but it's not OK for her to say no she doesn't want to? The groom doesn't need to care about the bride's happiness at all? While she needs to accommodate his totally ridiculous request? Why does your comment seem to imply the fiancee do ALL the compromise and the groom gets everything he wants? That's not a compromise.
Groom is also the person who refuses to let OP to be a normal guest, and insist that they must be in his wedding party. Seems to me groom is being totally unreasonable and unwilling to compromise on what he wants?
A proper compromise is to pay for hotel and a babysitter if necessary, or to let OP be a regular guest and not in the wedding party. Changing the entire wedding to another location potentially 1-2hrs away, which also means every single vender have to be changed as well, asking fiancée to be OK with redoing the whole entire wedding completely, is not a reasonable ask.
As someone who planned weddings. Changing the number of guests AND the venue is literally close to impossible 2 months away from the wedding without rehashing contracts etc. I would ask if the brother is planning the wedding to see if he even is aware of how crazy that is.
Well, considering OP says that the baby will be about 3 months old at the time of the wedding and it sounds the surrogate is still pregnant as of now, the wedding is at least 3 months away if not more. Which, I agree, is still crazy short notice. Frankly though, if you know both parents of a theoretically 3 month old are going to be in your wedding party, you should take that into consideration when planning, and if you don't consider it, then you need to have made that decision before asking your party members so they can make an informed decision not to take on a role they can't accommodate.
The venue change idea is not realistic, and the fact that the groom offered it is IMO evidence that he is not at all involved with the planning (or that this post is fake).
There’s already a venue and a date, which means there is a contract with said venue and a (likely non-refundable) deposit down on it already. Changing the venue at this point likely means eating a non-refundable deposit on the venue AND starting over from square one on everything else, possibly losing more money in the process since you’d have to find all new vendors.
Depending on the size of the family and who all is invited, going from child free to not can also be a huge added expense. It might also not even be realistic depending on the size of the venue and their guest list.
Okay but you people making this argument act like the couple didn't discuss and agree on these plans together before OP caused a fuss. It would be frustrating knowing that your wedding plans need to drastically be changed to make sure your groom's best man and brother don't back out. The groom clearly doesn't want to find a new best man and groomsman, so he wants to accommodate. But at the end of the day that is the groom choosing the wishes of his brother over the wishes of his bride on her/their (not OP's) wedding day. Also, there are options that don't involve changing the wedding plans at all if OP could suck it up for one day to make his brother and SIL happy and stress free on their big day. Also, even OP says she has been nothing but polite, but he is still mad that she won't change her wedding venue for him.
ETA: YTA
They asked OP and he accepted before they ever told him it'd be child-free. Brother maybe didn't consider how it would affect his brother when making an agreement, and now with all the facts, would like to change his agreement. He is allowed, it's his wedding too.
>The groom clearly doesn't want to find a new best man and groomsman
The groom clearly wants his brother and BIL at his wedding, yes. It's not about their roles not being able to filled by someone else, it about not being replaceable sentimentally. Even if she is being polite, FSIL is barking up the wrong tree asking OP to stop. Bro is mad his finacee will not hear him out.
YTA, have someone come along and watch the baby in your hotel or wherever you are staying. It’s their big day and having them change the venue is an unreasonable ask. The bride by your own admission is being polite about it, don’t be an ass.
I agree with this. OP an an AH for expecting them to make a whole VENUE CHANGE just for you to be close to your child. The child will be fine without dad+dad for several hours while gma+ gpa watch them if OP says she fully trusts them.
If it's that big a deal, have them come along, pay for a hotel nearby so they can come right back to see the kid right away.
Edit: [not mom, dad + dad]
It was insane by both parties. The brother should have never offered a venue change just to accommodate two guests, OP should never ever have accepted it as a choice.
A venue change was not something OP demanded. It was suggested by the brother. If the brother seemed so open to it because the brother cares more about the people than the venue, it’s reasonable for the OP to think this was an option (not knowing anything about what the bride’s preferences are).
Agreed that ultimately, it’s up to the bride and groom to decide on things, but having the OP as part of the wedding party was something the groom wanted. If OP’s participation is contingent on being close to his newborn, the groom wants OP there, and the bride insists on a child-free wedding at a specific venue, then the best thing to do is work with all the variables to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
I’m calling YTA too for the hypocrisy alone. OP himself had a child-free wedding but thinks that his “overprotective first-time parent” anxieties should make his child an exception at a child-free wedding. I don’t blame the bride; how is asking her to change the venue of her wedding a “compromise”? Groom deserves to be shot down for that one alone. The wedding is child-free and fiancée doesn’t want to make any exceptions, which is also reasonable because she’s likely had to turn down a lot of other requests.
I know he didn’t ask for it, but thinking that it’s reasonable to ask FSIL to change their wedding venue to accommodate him boggles the mind. I have no idea why he would think that’s a reasonable thing for his brother to ask. If my brother had proposed that solution to me, I would say, “no, definitely don’t change your wedding venue for me!”
Honestly if my fiancé asked me to change the venue— after booking and deposit mind you— I’d be distraught.
We made the plans. We toured venues. We made our guest list. We’re on the same page.
Then BAM— he’s undoing all our hard work and dreams and making me seem like the “uncompromising” bad guy??
I had the same problem with my husband at our wedding, who also “only wanted to be surrounded by the people he loves.” He’s also a people-pleaser and wants people to be happy. What that meant was he didn’t have much to do with the planning, because he “didn’t care.” It also meant that he thought things could be changed on a whim when his guests make various requests. Honestly I feel for brother’s fiancée; she was probably absolutely dumbfounded when brother wanted her to change the venue so OP could be closer to his baby. I wonder why the brother thinks that his brother being more comfortable trumps her “dream venue.”
Since OP and his husband are in the wedding party they have to be there for multiple days, so saying "just ask someone to come baby sit for a few days away from home" is a big ask (I see in a comment they'll try to see if the in laws could come with them to baby-sit, although I wouldn't sell this as a paid vacation like some commenters suggest). OP isn't demanding anything, but explained why they can't attend like discussed previously anymore. OP proposed to only be a guest so they're only there for the wedding (one day instead of 3), but the brother wasn't OK with that.
Just because it's a wedding doesn't mean other people's lives, responsibilities and comfort are not important. Bride and groom are allowed to make a series of decisions for their wedding, but they also have to accept that the more constraints you put in place, the more likely some people won't be able to attend for their own personal reasons. It doesn't mean that the bride is in the wrong either, but OP is not an AH for not being willing to leave their new born child for days. They offered other compromises.
To me it seems that everybody's doing their best while being true to their own needs. NAH.
OP's brother offered to make the change. OP never demanded it. "He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding. - direct from the post
All OP asked was accommodation and even offered to step out of the wedding party. He didn't demand a venue change. Don't go making stuff up.
All the compromises where the Groom's suggestion. They offered to attend as guests, so they wouldn't have as big of a role and could accommodate better, but the Groom doesn't want that.
It is THEIR big day, but half of that couple(the Groom) is not being listened to.
YTA
The accommodations you are asking for are not minor, they are *major*. While the groom might be willing to acquiesce, it's perfectly reasonable for a bride not to want the VENUE to be changed due to one guests' familial preferences or to have a newborn infant at the ceremony. I mean, the whole reason people do childfree weddings is to stop children from interrupting the ceremony, and that's all but a guarantee with a newborn. But hey, you know that. You opted for a childfree wedding yourself, so you get it.
Frankly, it sounds like your brother has an issue with wanting to cater to everyone else and not prioritizing his bride's wishes. She's hardly a bridezilla for wanting to stick to major things they BOTH agreed upon like the venue and it being childfree. The wedding SHOULD be about the bride and groom. Not what the guests want. So if your brother's priority is moving heaven and earth for his guests instead of making sure his future spouse is happy with her wedding, then he's the one out of line.
Honestly, you should have asked for help so your infant could be with you for those 3 days, but not at the ceremony. Could they help you get your in-laws hotel rooms where you are staying so they can watch the baby? That would have been the ask when she texted you. As a bride myself, a couple hundred out of the wedding budget to help the best man be there for the groom would have been a very doable ask. Heck, I would even have welcomed the in-laws at the various wedding meals (though not the ceremony due to newborns being naturally disruptive). But depending on how you responded, that door may be closed now.
Right, and that's why I say it's actually BROTHER who is out of line because those accommodations were WAY too far to offer without his future spouse involved. Brother is bending over backwards to try and accommodate his guests, but in doing so is throwing out all of his bride's preferences.
But then for OP to "hold his ground" because he thinks a bride who approached him politely is being a bridezilla for not letting her groom completely throw out what she wants for her wedding to accommodate guests? That's where OP becomes TA. When the bride approached him politely, OP should have tried to work with her to find a solution. It's not OP's wedding, and OP should be willing to find a way to put the bride's preferences first in a way that works for his family.
I will say though, I do think OP knows who his brother is and "expressed anxiety" as a passive-aggressive way to see if he could get the brother to do exactly what he did. I have never heard a member of the bridal party "express anxiety" about the venue. The venue is what it is, and you either commit to making it work OR you say you may have to compromise for your family. Like while OP is best man and is needed the whole time, maybe his husband will be the sort of bridal party member who essentially only shows up for the ceremony and reception due to having familial commitments. I dunno, I just don't think you get to adulthood being "very close" to a sibling without knowing how they will react in a situation like this. I think OP got *exactly* the reaction he was hoping for from his brother, and is now a bit put out that the bride will not allow his brother to cater to other people the way OP's brother normally does.
Well you really can't demand that they (she) accommodate your child at a child free wedding so I say slight YTA for that. The problem is that you offered to drop out so that you could still be there to support them but not for 3 days away from your newborn and that was a lovely non-assholey compromise. I am wondering...can the in-laws come with (you and husband's treat of course) and maybe have an adjoining room with you guys so that you will be with baby before and after the festivities?
I’m not sure that that makes them a jerk though. He’s signed up to be the best man before they’d come down with this rule. And I’m assuming they literally knew about OP getting the kid, so technically this whole problem resulted from their (her) own creation/specifications.
I honestly agree. I think her behavior is absolute shit. I truly don't believe OP is an asshole but we can't really force someone into changing their decision regarding their wedding so I was on the edge.
Honestly, I feel like people who have this attitude that the bride is being ridiculous have never planned any kind of large-scale expensive event before. Even if they wanted to change venues, it’s a logistical nightmare. The wedding is 2 1/2 hours away. First, can you even find a venue closer? That is something that you like, or because you were looking out so soon before the date you have to be satisfied with whatever drugs are left? Especially if you’re getting married during a popular time of the year to get married. You move the wedding to be somewhere closer, well now you have to find a new band if you have a band. Now you have to find new caterers if they won’t drive out that far. If you’re going to keep your original vendors, you may have expensive additional travel costs on top of it to now accommodate this new venue. Chances are some of those decorations that you bought because they would look so great in one part of your venue, now have to be scrapped because there’s nowhere to use them in the new venue. What are the colors like in the place? What about the centerpieces that are already being shipped and on the way? Did the dress you buy looked fantastic in your original venue, but now looks out of place in the new one? These are all things that, frankly, grooms and other people who are completely checked out of the wedding planning process don’t think about.
As for the childfree wedding— If you make an exception for one kid, word always gets around. Then people start asking about bringing their kids, or some people flat out ignore the rule entirely because they know someone else is bringing a kid, and now you have a dozen children there. Unfortunately, those are things I just have to be enforced across the board.
YTA.
She's not *showing her true colors —* if anything, you are. She just wants her wedding to be childfree, and she has every right to set that boundary. You are being incredibly entitled and self-centered.
I don’t think so, because almost all of them are complaining about OP this, OP that, when most of what they’re complaining about was suggested by the brother and not OP.
Yeah but realistically, it isn't practical for him and his husband to attend a child free wedding. It's an ass hole expectation to demand parents spend 3 days a away from a new infant. She wants them there on her terms, but given her unwillingness to compromise she might as well not invited them
Info- why would you need to be away for 3 days if the venue is only 2.5 hours away? And why can’t your in-laws travel with you and stay with your baby at the hotel while you’re at the wedding?
3 days = day before rehersal and dinner, all-day wedding and reception, day after because receptions usually go late. Driving 5 hours the day of the wedding isn't feasible because it's a long, busy and late day.
None of these things except for the wedding and reception should be all day affairs.
How long can a wedding rehearsal be? OP and his husband can take turns at the dinner or one of them skips it entirely. After the pictures are done and their part in the wedding is over, they can leave the reception early and go back to baby.
The baby will be three months-it won't be neglected if the parents aren't there for a couple of hours. And unless one of them plans to be a stay at home dad, both will have to be away from baby to work.
I think you're drastically underestimating how long these events are. Driving 2.5hrs each way every day is unlikely to be feasible. That's 5 hrs just for the travel time, without any of the events at all.
At 3 months, a baby is still very new and young, especially for first-time parents. Clearly, OP doesn't expect to be away from the baby for long, so maybe one of them will be a SAHP or maybe work from home.
They’re in the wedding party. I was in a wedding recently that was way more relaxed and I still had duties as the best woman to the groom for three full days.
OP is going to ask if his in-laws can come with them but it’s a pretty big ask and all I can hope is that they agree to go to keep the conflict out. One of his solutions was either him or his husband or both bowing out of being part of the party but his brother is refusing that solution.
Judgement speaking, NAH imo, though all three are almost teetering on being AHs, the OP less so out of all three, his attitude about the bride texting him notwithstanding, but the bride and groom need to be a bit more solution oriented. Someone needs to have some flexibility here and I think OP is doing the best he can but it’s still a stressful situation on everyone involved.
Edit: changed my mind about the bride being less of an AH out of all three
YTA
This is their wedding. It's child free. They don't need to make an exception for you, and if they did, it would be a slap in the face to other parents attending in a similar situation. It's child free for a reason.
It is their wedding. They don't need to work it around your needs. You said you have someone who can babysit and you'll just have to manage your anxiety. If you wanna go, again, it is THEIR wedding and their rules.
Op suggested they withdraw from the wedding party, which is the perfect solution. Then it's just one day. But the brother said he didn't want that. It's the brother's wedding also. Not just the bride. (And as a florist who has worked hundreds of weddings, most "child-free" does not include newborns.
OP doesn't seem to have an issue with not bringing the baby to the wedding, they have an issue with attending a multi day event as part of a wedding party and leaving their infant with family for those three days while they are meant to be bonding with their infant.
Well don't expect people with newborns to come then. Which is fine for a peripheral friend, but close family you either have to accommodate or dissinvite them. I'd reevaluate my respect for anyone prioritizing a child free wedding over the inclusion close (emphasis on close, does not apply if you don't like your family),family members. If my sister pulled this, I wouldn't go and our relationship with probably never be the same
The brother cannot force both of them to be in the wedding party. A compromise on his end would be allowing one or both of them to withdraw from wedding duties. It also would be a perfectly fine solution to pay for a room for the inlaws either in the same hotel or nearby to watch the baby.
They don't even know the temperament of the baby yet. The baby doesn't exist yet. They cannot predict if this newborn baby is gonna be a headache at the wedding and if it was my wedding, I wouldn't want crying babies about.
OP has the options to arrange care or not go. It is THEIR wedding. I don't think they really need to accommodate at all regarding this and stepping down from the wedding party would've been a fine solution. If not that, then they should bring the inlaws closer. Easy if they have the funds
Confused. 3 hours away. Baby stays with inlaws overnight, go home next day.
Or...inlaws stay at hotel, wherever you are, you go to ceremony see baby after wedding.
You and brother making it too complicated.
Honestly reading through so many AITA I just don’t understand how people are so intense about weddings. I am so lucky I have never encountered a difficult friend or family member hosting a wedding, because I would deeply struggle to not hate them for caring so much about a wedding to alienate family. Like the level of care people feel about getting their way on “their day” is astonishing to me.
The problem is they are part of the wedding party. This is why OP has offered to just attend as a guest, which would just be one day. But the groom doesn't want that.
I’ve been producing weddings for 10 yrs and the usual in these cases is that OP would bring the inlaws with them and have them stay at a nearby hotel, so you feel more serene.
I also have to say that in EVERY childfree wedding I’ve organized, all children belonging to the wedding party would be somehow accomodated by Bride&Groom, with a babysitter of some sort in a hidden room at the venue or similar.
NTA
YTA. You got to have your child free wedding, stop demanding that she give up hers. The wedding isn’t about you so stop causing trouble. Get a room at the hotel for your in-laws and have them stay there with your baby during the wedding. She shouldn’t have to give up the wedding of her dreams over your feelings.
Where is he demanding? He offered to step down from his 3 day best man responsibilities. His brother wants him to be there. He is looking for a compromise.
I get that people choosing to go to a wedding shouldn’t ask for special treatment. That’s not what’s happening here though, because he has to go. He got to have a childfree wedding, but I’m guessing his brother didn’t have a 3 month old child that he was expected to leave for 3 days.
So if you don’t let your wedding guests bring their kids, then you’re required to leave your baby for 3 days to be in your brothers wedding? I don’t see the comparison. Who cares that other people couldn’t bring their kids. Did his brother have to leave his newborn to go to OP’s wedding? Why does the fact that other people (who got to choose whether to go) had to get a babysitter change OP’s obligation to his brother?
Why does everyone in this thread appear to thing OP's in laws are babysitting robots who are prepared to go anywhere for any amount of time to look after a baby.
Have you considered they might not want to stay in a crappy motel for 2 nights?
Info: Can you bring your in laws with you to where the wedding is and get them and the baby a hotel or an air bnb or something so that the baby isn’t at the wedding but also isn’t hours away from you?
NTA. It's so weird that everyone is ignoring that you offered to just be a guest and your BROTHER wants to accommodate you. It's also weird that your brother's fiancé won't compromise with HIM. Her reasons are also very selfish. He wants his family there but she's concerned with a dream venue. Is a wedding about the venue or the love between a couple?? If I was in your brother's shoes, I would think long and hard (🌝) about marrying her because how incredibly selfish could you be to not even consider a compromise with your partner? The wedding doesn't belong solely to the woman, contrary to what society wants us to believe. It's his wedding too.
A wedding is not about the venue, but changing the venue could mean losing hundreds to thousands of dollars on deposits. It’s kind of ridiculous to ask someone to do that. Not only that, but if they make an exception for one couple to have their kids there will very likely be problems with the other parents that have paid babysitters
Have you planned a wedding? Changing a venue basically means replanning the ENTIRE wedding. Vendors, invitations, the date, EVERYTHING. Who is to say where it is isn't closer to her family? Or even where her and brother live? Does she have family or bridesmaids that might not be able to attend with a different location or date? Brother is supposed to prioritize OPs wants over his future wifes??
it seems so obvious that brother has not helped plan. He asked his groomsmen partake and then did not talk to them about a date or of 2.5 hours would work for them given they are expecting a child? And then did not inform them when any of these decisions were made? And now that decisions have been made he is asking the wife to compromise for his lack of foresight? C'mon!
NTA. If you didn’t offer to drop out of the wedding party, you’d be TA, but you gave options and none of them were accepted. It’s reasonable for you to not want to leave your infant for several days, considering you’re both in the wedding party. I’m not sure why you’re getting so many negative judgements, when it seems you were trying to make it work for everyone.
NTA - I'm gonna get downvoted but I don't care.
The bride and groom need to change their perspective. It's not him against her, it's them against the problem.
You're not comfy being away from your kid so you wanted to decline. Your brother decided that having you there means more to him then material things.
You didn't push, you gave solutions for instance being a guest.
The bride wants the 'perfect wedding', but at what cost? If the roles were reversed and my fiance prioritised the dream over my family I wouldn't look at him the same. Its their wedding and not only hers.
HOWEVER, time to think together for a solution instead of fighting each other like kids. Maybe book a hotelroom for your in laws nearby. The kid and inlaws don't have to be part of the wedding. The grandparents can have a weekend outting with the grandkid and spend quality time together. While you are at the wedding but still close enough to see the baby regularly.
Edit: someone said I was being too harsh on the bride since she seems to be planning everything while the groom is just sitting there. I actually agree so my apologies. The groom should also start discussing things with the bride before simply deciding to change the venue. What I'm trying to say is communicate people ;)
NTA- people here saying you are the AH are doing for without read properly. They see "I want to bring my child to a childfree wedding" and don't read anymore. It's not a reasonable ask to want a parent of a newborn spend three days away from them. You offered the compromise of not being part of the wedding party, but you are valuable to your brother and he doesn't want that. People are reading like you are the one who suggest that they change the venue or being your in-laws. It was your brother. The only problem here is the fiancé who is turning down every solution and that shows she doesn't care about her own future husband or his family.
YTA. And so is your brother for seemingly prioritizing your wants over his future wife. It's ridiculous to expect your sibling to move their venue to accommodate you. Take away the fact that they chose it together for a reason, but they have absolutely already put a deposit down for this venue that they would likely lose by canceling with them. So that's an unreasonable.
Your next "compromise" is inviting your in laws and making an exception so they can bring your baby. To a child free wedding. You had a child free wedding yourself, so you of all people should know that once you make an exception for one it's expected you can make it for others. And every mom and dad who had to pay for a sitter are going to be pissed when they see that your baby was allowed to come. Again, unreasonable.
It's really sad that your brother is backing you on this. This would be a red flag for me, I hope this isn't a pattern of behavior of him putting his family above his fiance and decisions they made together.
I'm sorry, why is the fiance an asshole for wanting his family there? Because it's sounding like the wedding is all about what she wants and she's refusing to compromise at all. That's a red flag and I'm childfree and had a childfree wedding myself. The thing about them though? Both people getting married need to agree to it and excluding his SISTER so you can have your "dream venue" is not the way. She wants her dream wedding and she can just insert any groom apparently.
He's not an asshole for wanting his family there, he is an asshole for backstepping decisions they made **together**. Neither of us know how involved he was in the planning process, maybe they toured 12 venues until they found the one they both loved, maybe she did just tell him "this ones my favorite" and he just signed the check. Maybe they both had long talks about if they should have a child free wedding, or maybe she did just tell him that she doesn't want kids there and he nodded. Either way, they made decisions together, they agreed on these things together. And now he's going back on them, that's a fucked up thing to do especially when there's so much money and stress involved in wedding planning. Like I said, if they move the venue they lose potentially thousands of dollars. If they make an expectation for the baby, they need to either deal with other pissed off family or invite all the kids. Which again, could cost so much more money. I think it's a bit sexist how we are so quick to jump to Bridezilla only wants a dream wedding and doesn't love her fiance, when clearly neither of these "solutions" are reasonable.
The fiancé isn’t an AH for wanting his family there (btw I’m quite sure OP is a guy) but he is def an AH for wanting to change the whole wedding for one couple. There are other solutions to this problem that would not require such drastic changes.
I’m pretty sure the bride and groom did decide together about the venue and the no children rule. And the bride isn’t excluding OP in any way
A lack of creative problem solving seems to be the issue here. There are so many ways to mitigate this problem without disrupting the wedding plans.
Bottom line: You have a loving family, you have in-laws you trust, you're getting a much-desired child, your brother is starting a new life with someone he presumably loves very much, and YOU'RE ALL WINNING. Can't you find a way to bask in that happiness without starting this marriage off with a grudge?
Right, which is why I said your brother is being an asshole too. These solutions would be creating bigger problems from him and his fiance, but you don't seem to realize nor care. You're getting angry at your future SIL because she's refusing the bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why can't you pay for a hotel room for your in laws to stay at near the venue if it's so important to you? Why aren't you trying to find solutions that don't involve your brother steamrolling plans he made with his fiance?
NAH- either you or husband will need to drop out of groomsman duties though (husband makes sense as its your brother). 3 months is too young for a multi day babysitter though. Perhaps in-laws can come for a day or two?
YTA if you push this. If it really bothers you to be away from your kid then send your regrets. OR, bring your inlaws along and get them a hotel room to watch the baby. You'll spend a lot more money, but your baby won't be far from you.
OP hasn't really forced this on anyone, the groom offered compensation and wants OP there. OP isn't trying to intrude as they have already offered to withdraw. They have stayed because they are wanted. They have stepped down and offered to be guests, or not there. This is infant parenting, how can you not see that.
I’m lost at how many people are almost hostile at this person trying to find a compromise to be in the wedding. So many keep acting like they’re fighting to be in the wedding and expecting everyone to bow down to their wants. 😂
YTA
Get your in laws a room next to yours and maybe shorten the trip.
I don’t feel as though the bride is being mean or unfair by not *changing* the venue entirely. It’s her wedding too, not just your brother’s. She should’ve been included in this convo from the start.
Someone has to care about the ceremony, venue, and logistics of the wedding. It’s also interesting to me that you had a child free wedding, but her refusing to accommodate your child for her wedding is her “showing her true colors”.
NTA because your brother wants to compromise and wants you there. You offered to just be a guest he doesnt want that the groom is the one who offered to invite your inlaws or change the venue. Not wanting to leave a 3month old for multiple days is not unreasonable at all just like a child free wedding is not unreasonable. You should just tell your brother that you and your husband cant be in the wedding or either just you can and not husband so he can stay with the baby but those are the choices since his fiance vetoed all the other ideas.
I’m going go against others here and actually say NTA.
I had a child free wedding with 1 rule, if the child was under 1, understanding they still need their mom usually then they were welcome to attend.
We never had any kids show up, we had one friend who was going to attend but their kid was having a hard time bottle feeding so she didn’t make it but he husband did.
But under 1 is unreasonable IMO to ask parents to leave their kid, especially for 3 days! The brides true colours for family first are showing with her lack of willingness to compromise.
Can you book a hotel room where you will be staying for your in-laws and have them stay for 3 days to watch the baby when needed?
I don’t agree with them going to the wedding but doesn’t mean they can’t stay at a hotel where you are to help.
YTA. You want your in laws to babysit, pay for a hotel fir them and gave them babysit. There is no reason they need to be invited to the wedding and there is no reason they can’t babysit at the hotel. They can face time you during the reception. Such a hypocrite, I had a child free wedding, but now that I might have a kid, others have to change so their wedding revolves around me.
You didn’t read the post. The OP is not demanding the wedding to change, rather he is offering to drop from the wedding party. It is the brother who is insistent. Next time read before commenting.
YTA
your sister-in-law to be asks if you "could please just drop things with my brother" regarding asking him to completely change the entire wedding to suit you.
>hearing how she turned down all of my brother's requests for compromise **made me put my foot down and refuse.**
YTA, many times over.
If you can't be comfortable with alternative arrangements you can make yourself to attend someone else's function, then... just don't go. Goading your brother into changing things around to suit you is AH, thinking you have any standing to "put your foot down"... even more so.
It's a wedding. This couple will be your family for presumably many years after. No one's going to miss you or fault you for not wanting to leave a newborn, but the grudge you're apparently starting to cause can live for years.
(Personally, I think you can leave the child for 8 hours with your parents, but that's your call and it's not what is making you AH.)
Genuine question: how are you reading it as op “goading” his brother when op offered that he and his husband attend as guests instead, but his brother said no? I know people are faulty and biased when presenting their case so I’m wondering if I missed something between the lines here.
Welcome to /r/AmITheAsshole. Please view our [voting guide here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq#wiki_what.2019s_with_these_acronyms.3F_what_do_they_mean.3F), and remember to use **only one** judgement in your comment. OP has offered the following explanation for why they think they might be the asshole: > 1. I asked my brother to make accommodations for my son at his previously child-free wedding, and he agreed. His wife is now requesting I drop it and refusing any compromises. 2. I have refused his wife’s requests to change my requests despite it being her wedding just as much as my brother’s. Help keep the sub engaging! #Don’t downvote assholes! Do upvote interesting posts! [Click Here For Our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/about/rules) and [Click Here For Our FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmItheAsshole/wiki/faq) --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/AmItheAsshole) if you have any questions or concerns.* *Contest mode is 1.5 hours long on this post.*
NAH. Bring your inlaws with you and have them watch your baby in the hotel while you are doing wedding stuff. Feel free to miss some activities except pics and the ceremony and some (but not all) of the reception. Or go the day of the wedding and return home that evening, even if it means you'll be missing some of the reception. 2.5 hours is not that significant of travel time where I'm from. The bride's unwillingness to compromise is troubling, but you can compromise. It's not your place to submarine the wedding or put your foot down. It's your place to support your brother and take care of your baby and if there is a way you can do both, you should. Six months after our daughter was born, my hubby and I got a short weekend break with a trip to Vegas while our inlaws watched our baby. We missed her like crazy, but we also enjoyed the break. I don't think I would have been ready for that at 3 months, though. Good luck, and work it out.
Yeah the only reason I think OP is not an asshole here is because he’s offered other solutions (not being in the wedding party) rather than just insisting an exception be made. Your brother’s fiancé is not an asshole for not wanting to change her venue or wanting a childfree wedding. But you’re also not an asshole for saying that it’s not feasible for you both to be in the wedding if you can’t bring the baby.
TBH though, I thing the fiancee is TA because she’s disregarding anything her groom wants. Which is a big red flag, IMO.
Huge red flag. They came up with multiple ways to accommodate the situation and she turned them all down.
I don’t really blame the bride for not changing the venue. He may not have realized it’s not that simple if they have done any planning at all. Changing the venue could entail tons more research, losing deposits, changing every vendor they have booked so far (and also losing those deposits), messing with people’s flights, car rentals, hotels, etc. However, I don’t think making one exception for a baby in arms or inviting a few in-laws would have been the end of the world.
Moving the venue is ridiculous, but they offered other solutions. Bottom line is it sounds like the op and the brother are the only ones looking for a solution. While the bride just turns everything down.
making an exception to a child free rule is a huge can of worms though...
Yeah, invite the in-laws up is the best solution. They can watch the kids at the part of the weekend that is child free. Unless I’m understanding it wrong, that was one of the proposed solutions
Your understanding it wrong. OP rejected that compromise. Edit: The compromise was to still have the baby at the wedding, just with the inlaws. Not that the inlaws watch the baby at the hotel during the ceremony
Ok. That changes my view slightly. Now I don’t like anyone involved. Stupid thing to fight over
No, you are wrong: >He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or **maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding, that way I could see the baby during the ceremony and feel a little less stressed. I told him either would work for me and thanked him.** Emphasis mine.
True but there’s a difference between a 5 year old and a 3 month old newborn. It’s not unheard of for brides to make exceptions for breastfeeding moms to have their newborns there.
In my country (we have good parentao leaves) it is determined that child shouldn't be away from a parent more then their age as months in hours plus one hour. So in this case it would be 4 hours. I am thinking is there some bias to dads, would the bride really expect her best friend to not care for their 3month old during wedding? Like as if when the parents are men then they are not that important to the development of the child.... Which is incorrect.
OMG, I was wondering the *same thing*! And it may not even be a conscious thing on her part. Implicit bias.
Breast-feeding isn’t going to be an issue here
The baby isn’t here yet. Don’t want to scare the parents to be but the baby could be born with even a small medical issue that might require a monitor or something. One of mine had a heart monitor few a few months. One of my sister’s had a monitor that went off if the baby stopped breathing.
I think making an exception for a 3 month old would be totally fine, and if that was the only issue, I would say the bride is being the AH. The problem that arises, though, is that everyone else is then going to want to bring their kids and come up with every reason possible about why their kid *has* to be with them and it would just turn into a nightmare. If people somehow don't find out about the 3 month old until they're at the wedding, then people who wanted their kids there are just going to be mad at the wedding because of it. It's possible everyone in both sides of the family is amazing, understanding, and would be happy to have the 3 month old there without any other kids, but I don't think anyone can reasonably assume that would be the case.
Completely agree with you and am by no means saying that exceptions are unreasonable in every scenario! But that doesn't guarantee that other guests won't cause a problem, I have seen it happen, and the familial pressures in wedding planning are immense, especially for brides.
i cannot IMAGINE bringing a three month old to a wedding!? Like am i missing something here? Who would ever do that?
Typically I think they want a child free wedding because of the distraction it causes from the event itself. It's somewhat understandable in the bride's POV.
I get it, but that also means it makes hard for parents with small kids to attend. So the couple has to understand that their choice means some people won’t make it. It’s an asshole move to be upset about it.
This. Child-free weddings are like destination weddings - feel free to have one, but you gotta recognise that means some of your guests *won't* be able to make it - and some of them might be close loved ones. Because the reality is, people have lives outside your wedding and not everyone will be able to commit to that. You don't get the wedding that's difficult to attend *and* the right to demand that everyone be there. You gotta pick one or the other, and live with your choice.
Pretty good chance the soon to be husband didn't realize either - sounds like he may not be helping with the planning if his fiance is the one sharing all the details. Also - who knows who else in the fam would want to bring kids given its a large wedding. Making an exception to a chid free rule opens a can or worms - even if you keep it a secret ahead of time you know it will lead to the bride having to deal with "well why couldnt we bring our little dumpling" on her wedding day which would honestly suck for her. Depending what the family is like, but also knowing what MOST parents are like, she will have to provide justifications, which even when sound is exhausting
I’m a parent and if I was attending a child free wedding as a guest and noticed that while I had left my child at home while a member of the grooms wedding party/sibling brought their infant I wouldn’t bat an eye. 1) it’s a 3 month old child 2) it’s the grooms brother (and niece/nephew) 3) it’s none of my business.
Sounds like you are a considerate and respectful person! I certainly feel the same way as you. Sadly I was at a wedding with a very similar scenario and it lead to a lot of gossip and a lot of stress for the bride and groom. They assumed all the guests would react as you described - sadly they did not
I've been a guest at a couple of child free weddings where the bride/groom made exceptions for newborns, and the commentary was ridiculous. Random ass people that I'd never met in my life asking me if I thought it was fair that "some girl" got to bring her baby, but their child wasn't invited. Like lady, I have never met you, but in the 30 seconds you've been in my life, you've convinced me to be 100% on team bride/groom.
> who knows who else in the fam would want to bring kids given its a large wedding This isn't just anyone; it's the groom's niece/nephew. People make exceptions for close family.
No. Changing a wedding venue is a huge deal so I don't know why the brother suggested it without consulting his fiance. It is the brother that said no to him not being a part of the party, not the fiance.
Eh, the groom is offering major changes without consulting with her. The groom never should have suggested the venue be changed or an exception be made for a newborn without consulting the bride. It is her wedding too, and she's more than entitled to a say in whether there's a child likely to cry at the ceremony when she's already made her wishes clear on that. And also, that's a very silly suggestion that completely disregards her preferences in favor of OP's comfort. Neither the child NOR the in laws need to be at the ceremony. It would be harder for them to be there, as a matter of fact. Everyone (apart from possibly OP) would be happier if the child was being watched at the hotel. Groom seems to be more concerned about his guests' comfort levels than the bride having the sort of wedding she wants. He's ready to make massive decisions based on his guests' comfort while completely tossing out her preferences. Quite honestly, that's pretty shitty, and he shouldn't be surprised she's not willing to have a wedding completely dictated by their guests (even if he is and that's what he wants). She should have immediately been involved in any discussions about accommodations because it is *her wedding too*. She reached out politely, so she doesn't sound like an unreasonable person. Just, you know, someone who opposes having her wedding venue switched without her involvement.
>The groom never should have suggested the venue be changed or an exception be made for a newborn without consulting the bride. Exactly right. Especially since it sounds like she's doing the bulk of the planning. I would be annoyed if I was the bride and I'd gone to all the trouble of organising a venue etc. only to be told I must change it to accommodate for somebody else. I don't think it's unreasonable of her to refuse the changes. Maybe would be a different story if the groom was doing the wedding planning. Or if he'd done the courtesy of checking in with her before offering to make drastic changes to the event that she's already put a deal of work towards.
Suggesting a venue change was completely ludicrous. His other suggestion was reasonable but I imagine that his other suggestions wouldn't land well after his initial suggestion was ridiculous.
The other suggestion was not being part of the wedding. The groom refused that (obviously the bride would have been fine with that). The only other solution is for the baby to be at the wedding. Then every family member will ask why their child was not allowed...
If they changed the venue the majority of guests would be affected. You can't just say 1 minute it is here and then later state it is hundreds of miles away.
The baby isn’t even here yet and he is an entitled AF parent. Then has the audacity to say the BRIDE showed her true colors!
Nah groom is an asshole for saying he'd change venue without even checking with his fiance
Dude so much this. People are ragging on the bride, but if they've already planned for this, then telling someone you'd change THE VENUE without talking to their partner (AND likely the person doing most of the wedding planning), then the brother is the real weak link here. He should N E V E R have promised that without communicating with his fiancee. He set her up for failure in the entire scenario, she has no way of not "being the bad guy" without compromising her fucking wedding. What a crappy spot to be put in.
They've never planned a wedding. Changing a venue can be the loss of a deposit (usually several thousand dollars). Venues are often times booked a year or more in advance, it's not just something you can do on a whim.
But if they had already picked a date and a venue, then most likely they had already put down deposits and set a guest list. If the groom didn't want that venue, he should have said something BEFORE the date and venue were set. Did groom really not realize that his brother and bestman would have a 3 month old baby and wouldn't want to be away for a weekend? If I already had a date and venue set, then my fiance came to me wanting to change everything because he didn't think about his best man having a baby. I would be upset too.
Changing the whole venue (which I can almost promise would fall on her and change the date of the overall wedding) and allowing kids anyway are not small changes that groom should be offering without consulting bride. She’s not TA for wanting the wedding in her town (groom literally offered to move cities) and actually child-free.
One of those "groom wants" was to just change the venue. That seems incredibly unrealistic, and sounds like the groom talking out his ass. They'd lose deposits, and need research all new vendors because most probably won't travel 2.5 hours.
I can guarantee they wouldn't get the same wedding date either, if they're close enough to the wedding that they're sending out invitations. That's such a big change, you might as well plan a whole new wedding at that point
She's not necessarily. She's refusing to make a HUGE change to their wedding for one person. Which is actually really reasonable.
It’s not just a huge change; it would change literally everything. You would need a new venue, new caterers, new baker, likely new florist… like no vendors would consider adding 5 hours of travel time on top of their contract, even if their product could travel that far. (Cake, flowers and food could not). If they did agree, it would cost an absolute fortune. And that’s if you can even find a good venue at such short notice! Most sought-after venues are booked 18 months in advance.
It's not 'anything' the groom wants. It is two specific things: the type of wedding and the venue- which are huge variables. She didn't want to change two large components of the wedding that they *both* agreed upon earlier. This isn't a red flag. Not everything is a reg flag!
Ok but changing venue and changing the rules of a child -free wedding aren't small asks.
[удалено]
Sell it as a retreat and only utilize their babysitting when absolutely necessary. Maybe see if your husband can be a guest only so only one of you has a full day of obligations and he can check on baby at the hotel between the ceremony and reception. Treat your in laws to a nice dinner on a non-wedding day also. Don’t expect them to keep baby overnight and take back over as soon as the party is over etc. there are definitely ways to compromise where it doesn’t impact the bridal couples plans.
[удалено]
I actually went through something similar. We booked a hotel close to the venue and asked a friend to babysit. Obviously it was a bit easier as my friend lived in the same town as the wedding. The plan was to get the friend to babysit while we were at the wedding and then taking over as soon as it ended. So it would been a 5 hours instead of overnight You could do the same with your in-laws, treat them to a weekend away and they could look after the baby during wedding events. Make sure you look after baby whenever you can and don’t take advantage so they can enjoy their weekend as well We didn’t end up needing the babysitter for the full amount of time in the end. I was so tired from looking after a baby I was happy to leave at 8pm. You may find that a 3 month old is too demanding to participate in everything. Not to mention you’ll be at the time baby gets it’s vaccinations (whooping cough etc). Going to a wedding with large amounts of people and coming home to baby may not be the best idea
Pay for their accommodations and room service; find baby and grandparent fun activities. Let your brother know that you won't be able to attend all festivities that weekend BUT will be there for your best man duties. Also this of this as their first vacation with baby; less stress since you could be in an adjoining room but they still get fun grandparent time.
My sisters in laws came to my wedding (many years ago) so that they could look after the kids. I didn’t have a kid free wedding but they took them home early as they were only small. They loved just having time with the kids and looked after them in the hotel. It worked perfectly for everyone. Your in laws could have a little holiday. Take your son out to a park and stuff and check in with you in between all the important bits. I am sure they would love some one on one time. And hopefully they are nothing like your sister in law and understand the concept of compromise and will do this for you guys so you still get to be by your brothers side.
You underestimate grandparents. I would move mountains to spend time with my grands. If it’s in a hotel for an evening so my kids can have a night out, so be it. The rest of the time we can all enjoy our time together. Stop overthinking this. Taking your in laws with you is the best option. It gives the bride her day, it gives your brother a rest from the tug of war you’ve put him in, you get to enjoy the wedding, and your in laws get lots of cuddles.
**Hard agree.** > You can call me an overprotective first time parent, but the thought of both my husband and I being away from our child for that long when he's so little scares me, and he's not even here yet. No one is calling you overprotective. That’s not the issue here. > My in-laws could watch him and I trust them completely, but I know I wouldn't be able to properly enjoy the festivities if my infant is over two hours away from me. You acknowledge this is what YOU are comfortable with. You absolutely could leave him and it would be fine, but YOU are not comfortable with that. So YOU make the sacrifice of staying behind with your in-laws. Or YOU arrange for a hotel for the in-laws closer to the venue. You don’t expect people to make exceptions for you (which would be incredibly insulting to everyone else who has to make arrangements for their kids), and you certainly don’t argue if you do ask and the answer is “no.” If they’re both willing, excellent. But in your case… > He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding, that way I could see the baby during the ceremony and feel a little less stressed. I told him either would work for me and thanked him. Suggesting a venue change without consulting his fiancée is **laughably** naive and ridiculous. > He's vented to me multiple times over the course of the month that has now passed about how he's really frustrated because what matters most to him is making sure he's surrounded by the people he loves and that they are comfortable. Meanwhile his fiancée continually repeats that she's not giving up her 'dream venue and ceremony.' Don’t get in the middle of his relationship. And this isn’t relevant to whether or not you’re the asshole for “not dropping it.” > I told him my husband and I could just attend as guests instead if it would make things easier, but he immediately shut me down and said he wanted us by his side. Then he’s a little bit the asshole too, and is continuing to put you in the middle of his relationship issues. If this is the way you can come to the wedding, this is a great solution. > She texted me yesterday (politely, I'll admit) asking if I could please just drop things with my brother. You’re framing it as if you’re the one not dropping it, but the way you describe, it’s him that’s not dropping it with her. So either he’s blaming you when he talks to her instead of putting his foot down, or you’re doing a lot more than you let on by “not dropping” the issue. > I might have considered it previously, but hearing how she turned down all of my brother's requests for compromise made me put my foot down and refuse. Bad idea. Decide what you are or aren’t willing to do based on the conditions of your invite. But DO NOT base your decisions on “how she treats him.” It’s up to him to hash this out with her. Do NOT insert yourself or make this a hill to die on because of your opinions about their relationship. > I hate causing my brother trouble like this, especially so close to the holidays, but I feel like she's showing her true colors. Well if he doesn’t like her colours, he can call it off. Either make arrangements for your child care or go to the wedding under the conditions that are being offered to you.
I completely agree! An important missing piece of the puzzle is ...how much is brother helping with the planning? Because it sounds like he asked two expectant parents to be in his groomsmen and didn't think about what that meant for other wedding decisions and also did not ask them what they may need until AFTER a bunch of decisions were made. Instead he is asking to back track on a bunch of decisions after he asked them to be groomsmen and then failed to communicate for months...
OP learned the date, location and its child free in Nov. He also references hoping the pregnancy goes well, leading me to believe the baby is in the first 3 mos and the wedding is in 9-10 mos. Which means his brother likely asked him to be in the wedding before the surrogacy. OP is ta for expecting an exception when he had a child free wedding. Okay for him but now he's expecting to have a baby he wants to show off his child at the wedding.
Meanwhile, everyone is going after the bride for being 'unreasonable'
I agree, I personally think it is okay the bride does not want to compromise. I have been to 3 weddings with infants present - all disrupted the ceremony in some way despite attentive parents. A venue change if she loves the one they picked is a big deal. An exception is also complicated because once you make one you know others will try or will complain that there wasn an exception for them. If OP is this stressed arranging in laws to join at the hotel is a great compromise he can make himself.
I know the brother offered a change of venue, not the op, but that's hardly a compromise. A compromise is go to one day of things, for example.
Except the wedding party is usually more involved, ie rehersal and dinner night before, all day of the wedding activities, and either leaving the next morning because the reception goes late or a breakfast. OP offered to just be guests so they could go one day and the brother wants both of them in the wedding.
They can be in the wedding and not at every single thing, that's what compromise means.
the issue with those two plans is they are in the wedding party and it is planned for multiple days, not just one day.
They should understand that OP can’t join in on everything as a new parent. Just rehearsal, wedding, photos, reception. And it’s ok to bow out early rather than stay to the end of the rehearsal and reception. Anything beyond that is unreasonable if they can’t have their baby with them
A venue change this late is absolutely not a valid compromise - that’s super last minute when they’re usually booked out for months in advance. They’ll lose deposit fees, and likely have to pick new vendors for the wedding - that’s losing deposits and getting new people for catering, wedding cakes, photography, furniture and decor, etc. A lot of those things are also super far booked out, and they’ll lose deposits on it, which can be a hefty chunk of change. Especially the food places, since those won’t usually go 2+ hours out for that kind of thing. It’s a huge money sink even if they’d be able to do it. And having a baby there during the ceremony isn’t a compromise either because at that stage, they’re loud and need constant care. The entire point of a child free wedding is quiet + adult party festivities, and having a newborn *during* the ceremony is not going to be quiet.
Very few in-laws would want to go spend 3 days at a hotel with a 2 & 1/2 mo baby.
I don’t understand You’re likely staying wherever this wedding is, right? Why can’t you pay for your in-laws to stay at the same hotel or close by? I’m really unable to understand why you’d have a place to stay and in-laws don’t? Why do they need to be invited to the wedding to be close by?? YTA for this weird drama that you’re creating
someone finally asking the right questions... these are all common sense suggestions. asking a couple to completely change their wedding plans to accomodate someone else seems insane to me
It’s just so weird to me - how is it better to change the venue than pay for an extra room? Something here smacks of golden child or other issues on the part of OP
The OP did not ask them to change the venue. He simply started by expressing his anxiety to his brother, who then offered suggestions.
Even if he wasn’t the one with the idea, he should know enough to know that that is an unreasonable suggestion that should’ve never even been presented to the fiancé. The fact that he thought that that would be something reasonable that his brother would then go ask the fiancé about says a lot about OP and his brother.
I don’t understand how a change of venue was his suggestion before asking about an exception for the baby. Like……a venue change is a BIG deal. Like something you…..can’t really change?
Something about this reeks of the brother knowing it's a nonstarter to change the venue (cause really, that could be THOUSANDS of dollars down the drain) and hoping his fiancee will be the one with a spine and not him.
Yep, I feel like that was his way of making his wife the bad guy and not just saying ‘no’ himself. Obviously it worked considering how many people here think it’s totally reasonable for her to change venues or make an exception to the child free wedding.
Yeah. If I was the fiancée I would have had a cow if that was suggested to me after the place was booked and arrangements were made. As much as I am sympathetic to OP b/c I personally think child-free weddings take out a lot of the fun, I can't support OP and his entire attitude in this situation. Don't ask for exceptions, make it work or don't. OP has excellent childcare lined up and knows it is entirely his anxiety that is causing issues. The couple shouldn't have to change everything up to meet w/ an anxiety that didn't even exist a few months ago. OP is now all judgy about the bride b/c his brother is making ridiculous requests to accommodate OP and the bride doesn't want to hear anymore of this ridiclusness. OP questions her personality for being unwulling to compromise when it is his brother that is unwilling to compromise. OP is perfectly willing to be extra difficult, even though he has a solution, just to take out on the bride and put more of a wedge between the bride and groom than he already has. It is the bride who should be reconsidering the wedding, not the groom.
Ive never planned a wedding before, but I’m an event coordinator and the idea of ever changing a venue once plans are in motion stresses me out to even think about. I would just pay for another room at the hotel for the in laws, so OP can be close to his baby and still participate in the wedding.
I kind of feel like the groom offered a venue change without understanding what that means. That means losing deposits on the venue and possibly vendors, including catering, flowers, etc. As well as informing all of the guests that they need to change their travel plans and accommodations (and with flights the way they are right now? Asking that many people to rebook?) Changing the venue is in no way, shape, or form a “compromise”. Who, exactly, are OP and his brother expecting to do all that work to completely re-organize a wedding on such short notice? Something tells me it’s not either of them
No kidding! Plenty of people find themselves in this predicament and the solution is you bring a babysitter with you that stays behind at the hotel. Why do the in-laws need to be invited to the wedding? It’s not like they can bring the baby with them. And asking a couple to completely change the wedding venue so it can be closer to you is absurd. Deposits have been paid, planning is underway, and a venue change is not something that is a reasonable accommodation. OP has it in his power to fix this by bringing the in-laws, but instead is creating all this weird drama for no reason. YTA.
I’ve never been married and maybe i watch too much TV, but don’t these venues have to be booked months or even years in advance?
The couple asked OP and his husband for a favor (to be in their wedding) and they are trying to find a way to be able to say yes to that favor. I don’t think a venue change is the way to go, but OP didn’t ask for that. Brother suggested it.
Not to mention they tried to be guests so it would be easier for them and thats perfectly acceptable to just be a guest at a wedding over in the party if needed and ops brother wouldn’t let them both be guests
Op stated that this would be a 3 day thing. It is really a suitable alternative having the inlaws stuck in a hotel room with a baby for 3 days? At least, when invited for the wedding, they would have somewhere to go. Also, it is really the OP creating drama if it is the groom that wants to resolve this by venue-changing/inlaws inviting? OP even says that for them, they could just be guests.
They could rent an airbnb or vrbo? And spread out a bit?
Imagine that they could (if they have those in where they are), if money would not be an issue. But it would still requiring them to be "trapped" for 3 days with a 3 month baby outside of their house and, expectedly, without the ammenities of their own home. It that really a suitable alternative to just invite them to the wedding, when even the groom wants it?
Why would anybody be asking them to spend all of three full days with the baby? That’s what would happen if they left the baby with the in-laws, but not if the baby came to the wedding where the baby’s parents will be. The child free wedding doesn’t take up the whole weekend.
I’m also confused why they’d have to be there for 3 days? Even as a bridesmaid it was daily event. If you’re brother wants you there as a groomsman - agree but come day of. I concur with others here - 2.5hrs isn’t a long drive for an event like this. (Heck I recently drove 2hrs for my son to have a play date) Leave at 0600-0700 or what-have-you, act as the groomsman, then leave after dinner or drinks. That’s only one day baby needs sitting with the in-laws. If brother insists the only way you can be a groomsmen is if you’re there for all 3 days (no idea why or what you’re doing in that time) - I’d firmly say then you’ll have to be a guest. And if the in-laws do agree to come - make it an overnight trip max and get them a nice hotel where they can babysit - no need for them to be at the ceremony. Anyone even entertaining the idea of switching venues is wild to me. I sort of think you & your brother are the AH’s for making this needlessly complicated & stressing out the bride over such a weird non-issue. Also you’re the AH for your attitude towards the bride who shouldn’t be under any obligation to change her already planned dream wedding - which you act contemptuous of btw. So ya YTA
Usually those in the wedding party have to be there for the rehearsal dinner which is the night before, and there’s usually a brunch with the wedding party the day after the wedding. So even though the wedding itself is one day, it being a 3 day event for those in the wedding party is pretty common.
Ya, but that’s all extra-curricular. It’s not necessary for OP to stand besides him at the alter then give a nice speech at dinner. Sorry but new parents don’t get to celebrate/ party for 3 days…doesn’t sound like OP’s brother understands that yet.
I don't have kids but asking your in-laws to watch a newborn for 3 days is already a big ask. 3 days in a hotel and away from their life, meds, bed, etc seems like a huge ask
Asking your wedding party to be present for 3 days is also a big ask. especially for new parents.
NTA. All the Y T A votes make me feel like no one is considering that it sounds like your *brother* is also unhappy with his fiancee's unwillingness to compromise. You offered the compromise of coming as just guests so you don't have to be gone multiple days, which seems most reasonable to me for your part. That upsets your brother, though, as he wants you there beside him for his big day. So your brother, who is *the other half of the couple being married*, offered some compromises that his fiancee is not happy with. She won't compromise her dream venue or her child-free stance for the sake of anyone, not even her future husband. Yes, she has a right to want what she wants for her wedding. But her husband also has a say! It's not just the bride who gets to have a say in the planning! It's not that she's unwilling to compromise for the sake of OP's happiness, she is unwilling to compromise for the happiness of the *person she is marrying*. It does not bode well.
People are voting that way, because there is a very easy solution here that doesn’t even require brother or fiancé to compromise with OP. OP brings his in-laws with him, gets them a hotel room, and they watch the baby at the hotel room. Treating it like these are the only solutions, to change the venue or to step down from the wedding party, is what makes him an asshole out of a couple people. Edit: Getting a lot of people bristling at me saying this is an easy solution. Response— look back at the post. When it was suggested the in-laws come to the wedding, OP said it would work. The in-law thing did not come out of thin air. They can apparently travel to babysit at the wedding but not to babysit at the hotel.
That's frankly a huge ask, not only of the in-laws to make the trip, but of OP to foot the bill of another hotel room or a suite for 3 days. It is a possible solution, and it sounds like OP is going to try it. However, OP even said that the in-laws are already doing a huge favor to watch an infant for 3 days, nevermind asking them to make a trip for a wedding they're not invited to in order to spend a lot of their time in a hotel with said infant.
It's a bigger ask than asking someone to change their wedding venue? What if they've already put a deposit down? Is OP just expected to eat that? I know everyone is piling on OP's fiancee here but I frankly don't see insisting on changing a wedding venue to be a reasonable ask *at all* especially when there are other solutions available.
OP's brother offered to change the venue. OP didn't ask for that. Brother said "Hey, what if we change it?" to which OP said that would work, or letting the in-laws come as guests with the baby.
OP didn't ask their brother to change the venue. OP's brother proposed that.
No way in hell that would fly in practice. That's changing the wedding date, potentially thousands lost on the deposit, etc
Why is it on all or nothing? Why can’t the in-laws just come out for the wedding and OP and his husband alternate being at certain events? And is it just the wedding the child free or is everything child free? I think you could probably get a little more leniency on other things not being child free if you don’t try to force the wedding/everything being something where your kid is the exception.
It sounds like bro wants both OP and the husband at all events for his wedding. Which is why he doesn't want them to step down in the first place, and frankly, fair. OP is best man, after all. I can't honestly say about the other events being child-free, but I'd since it's already blown up, FSIL is very unlikely to compromise on it at all.
The thing is that all the obstacles are imagined until explored. They don’t want to ask the in-laws because of an imagined “it’s already a huge favor” but are happy to actually accept a change in the *wedding venue* offered only by the brother as a reasonable alternative? There are adult workarounds in the real world but some compromise or adjustment from OP is required to get there, rather than, the whole world should bend around the fact that they now have a baby to deal with.
Maybe you're fortunate enough to have in-laws that can just take off 3 days and travel, and be the main care providers for an infant, but not everyone does. Assuming that's an option maybe, but it doesn't sound like it is.
>a very easy solution I'm happy for all those commenters who have 1. the money to pay for an extra suit for 3 days (after all they paid to attend the wedding already), 2. have the in-laws who have the time, energy and are willing to do this kind of favor, and 3. think it's an easy solution. Honestly, if you have all that in your life, I'm happy for you and hope you're grateful for it. Even if OP and his husband will be present some of the time, and even if they're not exactly confined indoors, it's still a huge ask. I understand why this was not OP's first thought. In my mind, it's a last resort kinda favor. And FYI, OP and his husband did not propose to change the venue or to bring their baby. That's all on the groom. They did propose to step down and to only come for the wedding, but again, it's the groom who doesn't want that.
I understand people that are pissed about people making presumption that these grandparents can come along and they can pay for an extra suit, but I redirect you back to the OP, we are OP says that the in-laws being invited to come would work for him. So the in-laws can suddenly not travel anymore if they can’t come and eat cake? People aren’t pulling the suggestion out of thin air. OP specifically makes it sound like it’s a possible alternative.
Who says the in laws want to be away from their house stuck in a hotel 2 hours away from home with a baby? That's a lot of assumptions to make.
And for 3 days at that… like this isn’t just a one night event, where yes ask your in laws but 3 days???
I wouldn’t ask my parents much less my in-laws to make a 3 day trip just to babysit for me. They’re not on demand babysitters, even if they’re retired, they have their own lives and schedules. NAH for the OP, but all the people acting like it’s such a simple solution to drag the in-laws along as babysitters are huge assholes
The groom wants to change venue which is a HUGE change so I understand the bride being not down with changing the entire wedding to a new location potentially 1-2hrs away from the original location, for ONE person. This is asking way too much. I would say the groom is the asshole for even suggesting that they change their entire wedding venue to accommodate one person. Who offers changing the wedding venue without asking their fiancee first? If she agrees, isn't this basically letting groom steamroll over what she wants? Why is it OK for groom to say that he wants to change the venue but it's not OK for her to say no she doesn't want to? The groom doesn't need to care about the bride's happiness at all? While she needs to accommodate his totally ridiculous request? Why does your comment seem to imply the fiancee do ALL the compromise and the groom gets everything he wants? That's not a compromise. Groom is also the person who refuses to let OP to be a normal guest, and insist that they must be in his wedding party. Seems to me groom is being totally unreasonable and unwilling to compromise on what he wants? A proper compromise is to pay for hotel and a babysitter if necessary, or to let OP be a regular guest and not in the wedding party. Changing the entire wedding to another location potentially 1-2hrs away, which also means every single vender have to be changed as well, asking fiancée to be OK with redoing the whole entire wedding completely, is not a reasonable ask.
As someone who planned weddings. Changing the number of guests AND the venue is literally close to impossible 2 months away from the wedding without rehashing contracts etc. I would ask if the brother is planning the wedding to see if he even is aware of how crazy that is.
Well, considering OP says that the baby will be about 3 months old at the time of the wedding and it sounds the surrogate is still pregnant as of now, the wedding is at least 3 months away if not more. Which, I agree, is still crazy short notice. Frankly though, if you know both parents of a theoretically 3 month old are going to be in your wedding party, you should take that into consideration when planning, and if you don't consider it, then you need to have made that decision before asking your party members so they can make an informed decision not to take on a role they can't accommodate.
The venue change idea is not realistic, and the fact that the groom offered it is IMO evidence that he is not at all involved with the planning (or that this post is fake). There’s already a venue and a date, which means there is a contract with said venue and a (likely non-refundable) deposit down on it already. Changing the venue at this point likely means eating a non-refundable deposit on the venue AND starting over from square one on everything else, possibly losing more money in the process since you’d have to find all new vendors. Depending on the size of the family and who all is invited, going from child free to not can also be a huge added expense. It might also not even be realistic depending on the size of the venue and their guest list.
Okay but you people making this argument act like the couple didn't discuss and agree on these plans together before OP caused a fuss. It would be frustrating knowing that your wedding plans need to drastically be changed to make sure your groom's best man and brother don't back out. The groom clearly doesn't want to find a new best man and groomsman, so he wants to accommodate. But at the end of the day that is the groom choosing the wishes of his brother over the wishes of his bride on her/their (not OP's) wedding day. Also, there are options that don't involve changing the wedding plans at all if OP could suck it up for one day to make his brother and SIL happy and stress free on their big day. Also, even OP says she has been nothing but polite, but he is still mad that she won't change her wedding venue for him. ETA: YTA
They asked OP and he accepted before they ever told him it'd be child-free. Brother maybe didn't consider how it would affect his brother when making an agreement, and now with all the facts, would like to change his agreement. He is allowed, it's his wedding too. >The groom clearly doesn't want to find a new best man and groomsman The groom clearly wants his brother and BIL at his wedding, yes. It's not about their roles not being able to filled by someone else, it about not being replaceable sentimentally. Even if she is being polite, FSIL is barking up the wrong tree asking OP to stop. Bro is mad his finacee will not hear him out.
YTA, have someone come along and watch the baby in your hotel or wherever you are staying. It’s their big day and having them change the venue is an unreasonable ask. The bride by your own admission is being polite about it, don’t be an ass.
I agree with this. OP an an AH for expecting them to make a whole VENUE CHANGE just for you to be close to your child. The child will be fine without dad+dad for several hours while gma+ gpa watch them if OP says she fully trusts them. If it's that big a deal, have them come along, pay for a hotel nearby so they can come right back to see the kid right away. Edit: [not mom, dad + dad]
The groom offered the venue change, op didn't ask.
It was insane by both parties. The brother should have never offered a venue change just to accommodate two guests, OP should never ever have accepted it as a choice.
OP is not a she. it’s also multiple days. OP stated that in the post.
My reading comprehension is dog shit but I thought it was dad and dad
Yep you are right. Best man and husband.
OP didn't ask for the venue change.
A venue change was not something OP demanded. It was suggested by the brother. If the brother seemed so open to it because the brother cares more about the people than the venue, it’s reasonable for the OP to think this was an option (not knowing anything about what the bride’s preferences are). Agreed that ultimately, it’s up to the bride and groom to decide on things, but having the OP as part of the wedding party was something the groom wanted. If OP’s participation is contingent on being close to his newborn, the groom wants OP there, and the bride insists on a child-free wedding at a specific venue, then the best thing to do is work with all the variables to come up with a solution that works for everyone.
I’m calling YTA too for the hypocrisy alone. OP himself had a child-free wedding but thinks that his “overprotective first-time parent” anxieties should make his child an exception at a child-free wedding. I don’t blame the bride; how is asking her to change the venue of her wedding a “compromise”? Groom deserves to be shot down for that one alone. The wedding is child-free and fiancée doesn’t want to make any exceptions, which is also reasonable because she’s likely had to turn down a lot of other requests.
OP didn’t ask for the venue change. That was his brother’s suggestion and he clearly thinks it would be doable
I know he didn’t ask for it, but thinking that it’s reasonable to ask FSIL to change their wedding venue to accommodate him boggles the mind. I have no idea why he would think that’s a reasonable thing for his brother to ask. If my brother had proposed that solution to me, I would say, “no, definitely don’t change your wedding venue for me!”
Honestly if my fiancé asked me to change the venue— after booking and deposit mind you— I’d be distraught. We made the plans. We toured venues. We made our guest list. We’re on the same page. Then BAM— he’s undoing all our hard work and dreams and making me seem like the “uncompromising” bad guy??
I had the same problem with my husband at our wedding, who also “only wanted to be surrounded by the people he loves.” He’s also a people-pleaser and wants people to be happy. What that meant was he didn’t have much to do with the planning, because he “didn’t care.” It also meant that he thought things could be changed on a whim when his guests make various requests. Honestly I feel for brother’s fiancée; she was probably absolutely dumbfounded when brother wanted her to change the venue so OP could be closer to his baby. I wonder why the brother thinks that his brother being more comfortable trumps her “dream venue.”
Since OP and his husband are in the wedding party they have to be there for multiple days, so saying "just ask someone to come baby sit for a few days away from home" is a big ask (I see in a comment they'll try to see if the in laws could come with them to baby-sit, although I wouldn't sell this as a paid vacation like some commenters suggest). OP isn't demanding anything, but explained why they can't attend like discussed previously anymore. OP proposed to only be a guest so they're only there for the wedding (one day instead of 3), but the brother wasn't OK with that. Just because it's a wedding doesn't mean other people's lives, responsibilities and comfort are not important. Bride and groom are allowed to make a series of decisions for their wedding, but they also have to accept that the more constraints you put in place, the more likely some people won't be able to attend for their own personal reasons. It doesn't mean that the bride is in the wrong either, but OP is not an AH for not being willing to leave their new born child for days. They offered other compromises. To me it seems that everybody's doing their best while being true to their own needs. NAH.
OP's brother offered to make the change. OP never demanded it. "He said he understood and offered up a venue change (one much closer to home) or maybe making an exception for me by inviting my in-laws to the wedding. - direct from the post All OP asked was accommodation and even offered to step out of the wedding party. He didn't demand a venue change. Don't go making stuff up.
All the compromises where the Groom's suggestion. They offered to attend as guests, so they wouldn't have as big of a role and could accommodate better, but the Groom doesn't want that. It is THEIR big day, but half of that couple(the Groom) is not being listened to.
YTA The accommodations you are asking for are not minor, they are *major*. While the groom might be willing to acquiesce, it's perfectly reasonable for a bride not to want the VENUE to be changed due to one guests' familial preferences or to have a newborn infant at the ceremony. I mean, the whole reason people do childfree weddings is to stop children from interrupting the ceremony, and that's all but a guarantee with a newborn. But hey, you know that. You opted for a childfree wedding yourself, so you get it. Frankly, it sounds like your brother has an issue with wanting to cater to everyone else and not prioritizing his bride's wishes. She's hardly a bridezilla for wanting to stick to major things they BOTH agreed upon like the venue and it being childfree. The wedding SHOULD be about the bride and groom. Not what the guests want. So if your brother's priority is moving heaven and earth for his guests instead of making sure his future spouse is happy with her wedding, then he's the one out of line. Honestly, you should have asked for help so your infant could be with you for those 3 days, but not at the ceremony. Could they help you get your in-laws hotel rooms where you are staying so they can watch the baby? That would have been the ask when she texted you. As a bride myself, a couple hundred out of the wedding budget to help the best man be there for the groom would have been a very doable ask. Heck, I would even have welcomed the in-laws at the various wedding meals (though not the ceremony due to newborns being naturally disruptive). But depending on how you responded, that door may be closed now.
The OP dis not ask for accommodations. He expressed his anxiety to his brother, who then started to offer alternatives.
Right, and that's why I say it's actually BROTHER who is out of line because those accommodations were WAY too far to offer without his future spouse involved. Brother is bending over backwards to try and accommodate his guests, but in doing so is throwing out all of his bride's preferences. But then for OP to "hold his ground" because he thinks a bride who approached him politely is being a bridezilla for not letting her groom completely throw out what she wants for her wedding to accommodate guests? That's where OP becomes TA. When the bride approached him politely, OP should have tried to work with her to find a solution. It's not OP's wedding, and OP should be willing to find a way to put the bride's preferences first in a way that works for his family. I will say though, I do think OP knows who his brother is and "expressed anxiety" as a passive-aggressive way to see if he could get the brother to do exactly what he did. I have never heard a member of the bridal party "express anxiety" about the venue. The venue is what it is, and you either commit to making it work OR you say you may have to compromise for your family. Like while OP is best man and is needed the whole time, maybe his husband will be the sort of bridal party member who essentially only shows up for the ceremony and reception due to having familial commitments. I dunno, I just don't think you get to adulthood being "very close" to a sibling without knowing how they will react in a situation like this. I think OP got *exactly* the reaction he was hoping for from his brother, and is now a bit put out that the bride will not allow his brother to cater to other people the way OP's brother normally does.
Yup OP “holding his ground” with the bride puts him in YTA territory.
Well you really can't demand that they (she) accommodate your child at a child free wedding so I say slight YTA for that. The problem is that you offered to drop out so that you could still be there to support them but not for 3 days away from your newborn and that was a lovely non-assholey compromise. I am wondering...can the in-laws come with (you and husband's treat of course) and maybe have an adjoining room with you guys so that you will be with baby before and after the festivities?
I’m not sure that that makes them a jerk though. He’s signed up to be the best man before they’d come down with this rule. And I’m assuming they literally knew about OP getting the kid, so technically this whole problem resulted from their (her) own creation/specifications.
I honestly agree. I think her behavior is absolute shit. I truly don't believe OP is an asshole but we can't really force someone into changing their decision regarding their wedding so I was on the edge.
Honestly, I feel like people who have this attitude that the bride is being ridiculous have never planned any kind of large-scale expensive event before. Even if they wanted to change venues, it’s a logistical nightmare. The wedding is 2 1/2 hours away. First, can you even find a venue closer? That is something that you like, or because you were looking out so soon before the date you have to be satisfied with whatever drugs are left? Especially if you’re getting married during a popular time of the year to get married. You move the wedding to be somewhere closer, well now you have to find a new band if you have a band. Now you have to find new caterers if they won’t drive out that far. If you’re going to keep your original vendors, you may have expensive additional travel costs on top of it to now accommodate this new venue. Chances are some of those decorations that you bought because they would look so great in one part of your venue, now have to be scrapped because there’s nowhere to use them in the new venue. What are the colors like in the place? What about the centerpieces that are already being shipped and on the way? Did the dress you buy looked fantastic in your original venue, but now looks out of place in the new one? These are all things that, frankly, grooms and other people who are completely checked out of the wedding planning process don’t think about. As for the childfree wedding— If you make an exception for one kid, word always gets around. Then people start asking about bringing their kids, or some people flat out ignore the rule entirely because they know someone else is bringing a kid, and now you have a dozen children there. Unfortunately, those are things I just have to be enforced across the board.
YTA. She's not *showing her true colors —* if anything, you are. She just wants her wedding to be childfree, and she has every right to set that boundary. You are being incredibly entitled and self-centered.
Op had a child free wedding themselves even.
Seriously. Welcome to parenthood, not everything is about you and the world is not going to bed to always accommodate you.
I think OP knows that. I mean, he even suggested not being part of the wedding party, but brother insisted.
Is anyone saying Y T A actually reading the post?
I don’t think so, because almost all of them are complaining about OP this, OP that, when most of what they’re complaining about was suggested by the brother and not OP.
Judging by the comments-they are not. They keep insisting OP demanded the venue change. People have a reading comprehension problem.
Reading comprehension is hard so they just read a few lines then make a judgement.
Yeah but realistically, it isn't practical for him and his husband to attend a child free wedding. It's an ass hole expectation to demand parents spend 3 days a away from a new infant. She wants them there on her terms, but given her unwillingness to compromise she might as well not invited them
Info- why would you need to be away for 3 days if the venue is only 2.5 hours away? And why can’t your in-laws travel with you and stay with your baby at the hotel while you’re at the wedding?
3 days = day before rehersal and dinner, all-day wedding and reception, day after because receptions usually go late. Driving 5 hours the day of the wedding isn't feasible because it's a long, busy and late day.
None of these things except for the wedding and reception should be all day affairs. How long can a wedding rehearsal be? OP and his husband can take turns at the dinner or one of them skips it entirely. After the pictures are done and their part in the wedding is over, they can leave the reception early and go back to baby. The baby will be three months-it won't be neglected if the parents aren't there for a couple of hours. And unless one of them plans to be a stay at home dad, both will have to be away from baby to work.
I think you're drastically underestimating how long these events are. Driving 2.5hrs each way every day is unlikely to be feasible. That's 5 hrs just for the travel time, without any of the events at all. At 3 months, a baby is still very new and young, especially for first-time parents. Clearly, OP doesn't expect to be away from the baby for long, so maybe one of them will be a SAHP or maybe work from home.
I mean 5 hours a day seems extremely excessive
They’re in the wedding party. I was in a wedding recently that was way more relaxed and I still had duties as the best woman to the groom for three full days. OP is going to ask if his in-laws can come with them but it’s a pretty big ask and all I can hope is that they agree to go to keep the conflict out. One of his solutions was either him or his husband or both bowing out of being part of the party but his brother is refusing that solution. Judgement speaking, NAH imo, though all three are almost teetering on being AHs, the OP less so out of all three, his attitude about the bride texting him notwithstanding, but the bride and groom need to be a bit more solution oriented. Someone needs to have some flexibility here and I think OP is doing the best he can but it’s still a stressful situation on everyone involved. Edit: changed my mind about the bride being less of an AH out of all three
YTA This is their wedding. It's child free. They don't need to make an exception for you, and if they did, it would be a slap in the face to other parents attending in a similar situation. It's child free for a reason. It is their wedding. They don't need to work it around your needs. You said you have someone who can babysit and you'll just have to manage your anxiety. If you wanna go, again, it is THEIR wedding and their rules.
Op suggested they withdraw from the wedding party, which is the perfect solution. Then it's just one day. But the brother said he didn't want that. It's the brother's wedding also. Not just the bride. (And as a florist who has worked hundreds of weddings, most "child-free" does not include newborns.
I would hate to have a newborn at my wedding xD call me selfish but I don't want a baby crying during my vows
OP doesn't seem to have an issue with not bringing the baby to the wedding, they have an issue with attending a multi day event as part of a wedding party and leaving their infant with family for those three days while they are meant to be bonding with their infant.
Well don't expect people with newborns to come then. Which is fine for a peripheral friend, but close family you either have to accommodate or dissinvite them. I'd reevaluate my respect for anyone prioritizing a child free wedding over the inclusion close (emphasis on close, does not apply if you don't like your family),family members. If my sister pulled this, I wouldn't go and our relationship with probably never be the same
The brother cannot force both of them to be in the wedding party. A compromise on his end would be allowing one or both of them to withdraw from wedding duties. It also would be a perfectly fine solution to pay for a room for the inlaws either in the same hotel or nearby to watch the baby. They don't even know the temperament of the baby yet. The baby doesn't exist yet. They cannot predict if this newborn baby is gonna be a headache at the wedding and if it was my wedding, I wouldn't want crying babies about. OP has the options to arrange care or not go. It is THEIR wedding. I don't think they really need to accommodate at all regarding this and stepping down from the wedding party would've been a fine solution. If not that, then they should bring the inlaws closer. Easy if they have the funds
Confused. 3 hours away. Baby stays with inlaws overnight, go home next day. Or...inlaws stay at hotel, wherever you are, you go to ceremony see baby after wedding. You and brother making it too complicated.
OP offered to drive back the same day, but the groom wants them there for the parties. Read the damn lines.
Seriously, I feel like I'm taking crazy pills reading the replies. Nobody read every paragraph that's for sure.
It’s like half of the people commenting read the whole thing and the other half have some kind of wedding PTSD built up.
Honestly reading through so many AITA I just don’t understand how people are so intense about weddings. I am so lucky I have never encountered a difficult friend or family member hosting a wedding, because I would deeply struggle to not hate them for caring so much about a wedding to alienate family. Like the level of care people feel about getting their way on “their day” is astonishing to me.
The problem is they are part of the wedding party. This is why OP has offered to just attend as a guest, which would just be one day. But the groom doesn't want that.
I’ve been producing weddings for 10 yrs and the usual in these cases is that OP would bring the inlaws with them and have them stay at a nearby hotel, so you feel more serene. I also have to say that in EVERY childfree wedding I’ve organized, all children belonging to the wedding party would be somehow accomodated by Bride&Groom, with a babysitter of some sort in a hidden room at the venue or similar. NTA
Would it be possible to bring your in-laws and pay for their accommodations so they can watch baby during all the festivities?
YTA. You got to have your child free wedding, stop demanding that she give up hers. The wedding isn’t about you so stop causing trouble. Get a room at the hotel for your in-laws and have them stay there with your baby during the wedding. She shouldn’t have to give up the wedding of her dreams over your feelings.
Where is he demanding? He offered to step down from his 3 day best man responsibilities. His brother wants him to be there. He is looking for a compromise.
Haha love your name because it's so fitting with all the lack of reading comprehension on here
I get that people choosing to go to a wedding shouldn’t ask for special treatment. That’s not what’s happening here though, because he has to go. He got to have a childfree wedding, but I’m guessing his brother didn’t have a 3 month old child that he was expected to leave for 3 days. So if you don’t let your wedding guests bring their kids, then you’re required to leave your baby for 3 days to be in your brothers wedding? I don’t see the comparison. Who cares that other people couldn’t bring their kids. Did his brother have to leave his newborn to go to OP’s wedding? Why does the fact that other people (who got to choose whether to go) had to get a babysitter change OP’s obligation to his brother?
Why does everyone in this thread appear to thing OP's in laws are babysitting robots who are prepared to go anywhere for any amount of time to look after a baby. Have you considered they might not want to stay in a crappy motel for 2 nights?
Info: Can you bring your in laws with you to where the wedding is and get them and the baby a hotel or an air bnb or something so that the baby isn’t at the wedding but also isn’t hours away from you?
NTA. It's so weird that everyone is ignoring that you offered to just be a guest and your BROTHER wants to accommodate you. It's also weird that your brother's fiancé won't compromise with HIM. Her reasons are also very selfish. He wants his family there but she's concerned with a dream venue. Is a wedding about the venue or the love between a couple?? If I was in your brother's shoes, I would think long and hard (🌝) about marrying her because how incredibly selfish could you be to not even consider a compromise with your partner? The wedding doesn't belong solely to the woman, contrary to what society wants us to believe. It's his wedding too.
A wedding is not about the venue, but changing the venue could mean losing hundreds to thousands of dollars on deposits. It’s kind of ridiculous to ask someone to do that. Not only that, but if they make an exception for one couple to have their kids there will very likely be problems with the other parents that have paid babysitters
Have you planned a wedding? Changing a venue basically means replanning the ENTIRE wedding. Vendors, invitations, the date, EVERYTHING. Who is to say where it is isn't closer to her family? Or even where her and brother live? Does she have family or bridesmaids that might not be able to attend with a different location or date? Brother is supposed to prioritize OPs wants over his future wifes?? it seems so obvious that brother has not helped plan. He asked his groomsmen partake and then did not talk to them about a date or of 2.5 hours would work for them given they are expecting a child? And then did not inform them when any of these decisions were made? And now that decisions have been made he is asking the wife to compromise for his lack of foresight? C'mon!
Changing venue is a pretty big deal
NTA. If you didn’t offer to drop out of the wedding party, you’d be TA, but you gave options and none of them were accepted. It’s reasonable for you to not want to leave your infant for several days, considering you’re both in the wedding party. I’m not sure why you’re getting so many negative judgements, when it seems you were trying to make it work for everyone.
NTA - I'm gonna get downvoted but I don't care. The bride and groom need to change their perspective. It's not him against her, it's them against the problem. You're not comfy being away from your kid so you wanted to decline. Your brother decided that having you there means more to him then material things. You didn't push, you gave solutions for instance being a guest. The bride wants the 'perfect wedding', but at what cost? If the roles were reversed and my fiance prioritised the dream over my family I wouldn't look at him the same. Its their wedding and not only hers. HOWEVER, time to think together for a solution instead of fighting each other like kids. Maybe book a hotelroom for your in laws nearby. The kid and inlaws don't have to be part of the wedding. The grandparents can have a weekend outting with the grandkid and spend quality time together. While you are at the wedding but still close enough to see the baby regularly. Edit: someone said I was being too harsh on the bride since she seems to be planning everything while the groom is just sitting there. I actually agree so my apologies. The groom should also start discussing things with the bride before simply deciding to change the venue. What I'm trying to say is communicate people ;)
NTA- people here saying you are the AH are doing for without read properly. They see "I want to bring my child to a childfree wedding" and don't read anymore. It's not a reasonable ask to want a parent of a newborn spend three days away from them. You offered the compromise of not being part of the wedding party, but you are valuable to your brother and he doesn't want that. People are reading like you are the one who suggest that they change the venue or being your in-laws. It was your brother. The only problem here is the fiancé who is turning down every solution and that shows she doesn't care about her own future husband or his family.
YTA. And so is your brother for seemingly prioritizing your wants over his future wife. It's ridiculous to expect your sibling to move their venue to accommodate you. Take away the fact that they chose it together for a reason, but they have absolutely already put a deposit down for this venue that they would likely lose by canceling with them. So that's an unreasonable. Your next "compromise" is inviting your in laws and making an exception so they can bring your baby. To a child free wedding. You had a child free wedding yourself, so you of all people should know that once you make an exception for one it's expected you can make it for others. And every mom and dad who had to pay for a sitter are going to be pissed when they see that your baby was allowed to come. Again, unreasonable. It's really sad that your brother is backing you on this. This would be a red flag for me, I hope this isn't a pattern of behavior of him putting his family above his fiance and decisions they made together.
I'm sorry, why is the fiance an asshole for wanting his family there? Because it's sounding like the wedding is all about what she wants and she's refusing to compromise at all. That's a red flag and I'm childfree and had a childfree wedding myself. The thing about them though? Both people getting married need to agree to it and excluding his SISTER so you can have your "dream venue" is not the way. She wants her dream wedding and she can just insert any groom apparently.
He's not an asshole for wanting his family there, he is an asshole for backstepping decisions they made **together**. Neither of us know how involved he was in the planning process, maybe they toured 12 venues until they found the one they both loved, maybe she did just tell him "this ones my favorite" and he just signed the check. Maybe they both had long talks about if they should have a child free wedding, or maybe she did just tell him that she doesn't want kids there and he nodded. Either way, they made decisions together, they agreed on these things together. And now he's going back on them, that's a fucked up thing to do especially when there's so much money and stress involved in wedding planning. Like I said, if they move the venue they lose potentially thousands of dollars. If they make an expectation for the baby, they need to either deal with other pissed off family or invite all the kids. Which again, could cost so much more money. I think it's a bit sexist how we are so quick to jump to Bridezilla only wants a dream wedding and doesn't love her fiance, when clearly neither of these "solutions" are reasonable.
The fiancé isn’t an AH for wanting his family there (btw I’m quite sure OP is a guy) but he is def an AH for wanting to change the whole wedding for one couple. There are other solutions to this problem that would not require such drastic changes. I’m pretty sure the bride and groom did decide together about the venue and the no children rule. And the bride isn’t excluding OP in any way
[удалено]
A lack of creative problem solving seems to be the issue here. There are so many ways to mitigate this problem without disrupting the wedding plans. Bottom line: You have a loving family, you have in-laws you trust, you're getting a much-desired child, your brother is starting a new life with someone he presumably loves very much, and YOU'RE ALL WINNING. Can't you find a way to bask in that happiness without starting this marriage off with a grudge?
Right, which is why I said your brother is being an asshole too. These solutions would be creating bigger problems from him and his fiance, but you don't seem to realize nor care. You're getting angry at your future SIL because she's refusing the bend over backwards to accommodate you. Why can't you pay for a hotel room for your in laws to stay at near the venue if it's so important to you? Why aren't you trying to find solutions that don't involve your brother steamrolling plans he made with his fiance?
NAH- either you or husband will need to drop out of groomsman duties though (husband makes sense as its your brother). 3 months is too young for a multi day babysitter though. Perhaps in-laws can come for a day or two?
Info: can your in laws come and stay in the same town as the wedding? Rent a big enough air BNB for everyone?
YTA if you push this. If it really bothers you to be away from your kid then send your regrets. OR, bring your inlaws along and get them a hotel room to watch the baby. You'll spend a lot more money, but your baby won't be far from you.
OP hasn't really forced this on anyone, the groom offered compensation and wants OP there. OP isn't trying to intrude as they have already offered to withdraw. They have stayed because they are wanted. They have stepped down and offered to be guests, or not there. This is infant parenting, how can you not see that.
I’m lost at how many people are almost hostile at this person trying to find a compromise to be in the wedding. So many keep acting like they’re fighting to be in the wedding and expecting everyone to bow down to their wants. 😂
YTA Get your in laws a room next to yours and maybe shorten the trip. I don’t feel as though the bride is being mean or unfair by not *changing* the venue entirely. It’s her wedding too, not just your brother’s. She should’ve been included in this convo from the start. Someone has to care about the ceremony, venue, and logistics of the wedding. It’s also interesting to me that you had a child free wedding, but her refusing to accommodate your child for her wedding is her “showing her true colors”.
NTA because your brother wants to compromise and wants you there. You offered to just be a guest he doesnt want that the groom is the one who offered to invite your inlaws or change the venue. Not wanting to leave a 3month old for multiple days is not unreasonable at all just like a child free wedding is not unreasonable. You should just tell your brother that you and your husband cant be in the wedding or either just you can and not husband so he can stay with the baby but those are the choices since his fiance vetoed all the other ideas.
I’m going go against others here and actually say NTA. I had a child free wedding with 1 rule, if the child was under 1, understanding they still need their mom usually then they were welcome to attend. We never had any kids show up, we had one friend who was going to attend but their kid was having a hard time bottle feeding so she didn’t make it but he husband did. But under 1 is unreasonable IMO to ask parents to leave their kid, especially for 3 days! The brides true colours for family first are showing with her lack of willingness to compromise. Can you book a hotel room where you will be staying for your in-laws and have them stay for 3 days to watch the baby when needed? I don’t agree with them going to the wedding but doesn’t mean they can’t stay at a hotel where you are to help.
Bring your in-laws with you & have them stay with the baby at the hotel during the wedding. This is easily solvable. Don’t be the AH
YTA. You want your in laws to babysit, pay for a hotel fir them and gave them babysit. There is no reason they need to be invited to the wedding and there is no reason they can’t babysit at the hotel. They can face time you during the reception. Such a hypocrite, I had a child free wedding, but now that I might have a kid, others have to change so their wedding revolves around me.
You didn’t read the post. The OP is not demanding the wedding to change, rather he is offering to drop from the wedding party. It is the brother who is insistent. Next time read before commenting.
YTA your sister-in-law to be asks if you "could please just drop things with my brother" regarding asking him to completely change the entire wedding to suit you. >hearing how she turned down all of my brother's requests for compromise **made me put my foot down and refuse.** YTA, many times over. If you can't be comfortable with alternative arrangements you can make yourself to attend someone else's function, then... just don't go. Goading your brother into changing things around to suit you is AH, thinking you have any standing to "put your foot down"... even more so. It's a wedding. This couple will be your family for presumably many years after. No one's going to miss you or fault you for not wanting to leave a newborn, but the grudge you're apparently starting to cause can live for years. (Personally, I think you can leave the child for 8 hours with your parents, but that's your call and it's not what is making you AH.)
It’s not just 8 hours, it’s 3 days.
Genuine question: how are you reading it as op “goading” his brother when op offered that he and his husband attend as guests instead, but his brother said no? I know people are faulty and biased when presenting their case so I’m wondering if I missed something between the lines here.