This wedding ended in an amicable divorce.
A bride allegedly asked a woman not to bring her baby to the nuptials, but she brought her infant son anyway, fueling a debacle that has captivated the internet.
An anonymous Redditor posted his riddle on the “Am I The A-hole” forum on Sunday, racking up more than 4,000 upvotes and dividing commenters on his decision.
He claimed the original wedding invitations said babies were allowed, but the bride specifically requested that her son not attend just two weeks before the big day.
“My son was an early walker, walking at 8 months. He is almost a year old when we meet and she comments on how ‘advanced’ he is for his age,” the “surprised” mother wrote, in part.
“She doesn’t say anything other than post messages to say she didn’t realize my son would already be walking and please couldn’t take him to the wedding.”
But the Redditor had already purchased non-refundable transportation and lodging a year in advance, anticipating rising travel costs and an 8-hour drive both ways.
Knowing she would be traveling with her baby, she “booked two nights close to the wedding plus an extra night in town on the way back” a year in advance.
“He’s still nursing and I’ve never spent a night away from him at this point,” she said.
If she’d known he wasn’t invited, she could have arranged for a babysitter, but two weeks was too short a time.
“I tell him I’m sorry, but I can’t not bring him now with such late notice,” he continued. “She suggests we get a babysitter, but he’s too expensive and I’ve never left him with anyone before. I can tell that she is upset, but she doesn’t say anything else.
By the time they arrived at the ceremony, not only were there other babies and children, but the celebration had turned into a baptism instead of a nuptials.
“They were calling it a celebration for friends and family,” he wrote. “There was a mix of ‘wedding’ speeches after dinner and a lot of talk about the actual wedding which was supposedly wonderful and had speeches too, but most of us hadn’t been invited to.”
Despite her son’s good behavior (he remained silent the entire time and fell asleep after dinner), Bridezilla’s mother insisted that they leave “immediately after dinner,” and she agreed.
Now, he claims the couple’s friendship is “ruined.”
“I accept that it is her wedding and she should be able to specify her wishes on her day, but I feel like two weeks in advance when she had carefully planned so far in advance to be able to attend was unfair, especially since there were other babies there,” her post concluded.
“Am I the idiot?”
Reddit peers pitched in on the debacle, but opinions were divided.
“I wanted to say YTA for bringing a child after she specifically said not to but given the fact you were told the babies would be fine I’m going to say NTA,” one person wrote, adding that the woman’s child should still be considered a “baby.”
“Oooh, maybe the real reason she’s mad is because your son is more advanced than hers and when she saw that, she didn’t want him there,” another suggested.
“The title made me think that it would be the opposite ruling, but NTA. The invitation said babies were allowed. It didn’t say ‘just babies who can’t walk’,” someone else wrote. “And apparently he gave you permission by accepting your answer when you said that a babysitter was not an option.”
They added: “IF she had offered to fully refund all their costs as an apology for basically not inviting them a few weeks before the wedding, that would be acceptable but still pretty rude in my opinion. But she was completely wrong here.”
“NTA: did you have a whole ceremony to christen your baby? With speeches and all? They didn’t even exchange vows? This sounds so strange! chided another.