Having a child-free wedding is not uncommon, but if you want to ban youngsters from your ceremony, then you have to be prepared for some parents to decide not to attend either.
One bride, however, was left furious when her soon-to-be sister-in-law told her that unless she budged on her rule that banned babies from her wedding, she wouldn't be coming - as she welcomed her first child just a few weeks ago.
The bride explained that she has been "clear from the beginning" that she doesn't want kids at her wedding, and refuses to change her stance for her fiancé's sister, demanding that she leave her newborn at home instead.
In a post on Reddit, the woman said: "I am getting married to my fiancé in a few months, and we're in the middle of finalising all the details for our big day. One thing that's been causing a bit of tension is the fact that my sister-in-law just had a baby a few weeks ago, and she's been insisting that she bring the baby to the wedding.
"We've made it clear from the beginning that we don't want children at our wedding, as we want it to be an adult-only affair. We've communicated this to all our guests, including my sister-in-law, but she's been pushing back and saying that she can't possibly leave her newborn at home.
"I understand that she's a new mom and that it can be tough to leave your baby, but I feel like she's being unreasonable. This is our special day, and we've planned it to be a certain way. It's not fair for her to come in and disrupt that."
The bride said she's worried her rule might be "too harsh", but at the same time she said she doesn't want to budge as she really doesn't want children at her wedding - even if it means having the groom's sister drop out.
She added: "I tried to explain this to her, but she got really upset and accused me of not caring about her or her baby. She's even threatened to not come to the wedding at all if we don't allow the baby.
"I'm starting to feel like maybe I'm being too harsh, but at the same time, I don't want to compromise on what we've planned for our wedding."
Commenters on the post were split on the issue, with many saying that if the bride and groom are okay with the new mum not attending, then none of them are in the wrong - as the mum can stay at home without anyone getting upset.
However, commenters also pointed out that if the bride and groom are demanding the new mum still attend the wedding despite their baby-free rule, then they are being unreasonable.
One person said: "Are you okay with your sister-in-law skipping the wedding? If not, then you're the a**hole. It's not 'hard' to leave a newborn. It's nearly impossible. Even when it is possible, it's incredibly difficult. Those early months are tough.
"If you're okay with her missing, then there's no a**holes here."
While another added: "You're calling her planning not to come as a 'threat' when that's the only reasonable option left to her. If you want her there, you're going to need to make an accommodation for her baby. A few weeks old is far too young to expect her to leave the child with someone else.
"If you're unwilling to make an exception, tell her that you completely understand she won't be able to attend … but also don't be shocked if she finds it hurtful that you'd rather her not be there than compromise your perfect wedding vibe."
And a third wrote: "You have every right to not let kids at the wedding, but a natural consequence of that is some people who are parents simply won't be able to come. It's completely reasonable for her to not want to leave her newborn baby."
The bride has not responded to any comments as of the time of writing, and it's unclear whether she and her fiancé are okay with the idea of the mum staying at home.
Do you have a story to sell? Get in touch with us at yourmirror@trinitymirror.com.
