This wedding ended in a friendship divorce.
A woman was allegedly asked by a bride to not bring her infant to the nuptials, but she brought her young son anyways, fueling a debacle that has captivated the internet.
An anonymous Redditor posted her conundrum on the forum “Am I The A–hole” on Sunday, racking up more than 4,000 votes and dividing commenters over her decision.
She claimed that the original wedding invites stated that babies were allowed, but the bride specifically requested that her child not be in attendance just two weeks out from the big day.
“My son was an early walker, walking at 8 mos. He’s almost a year old when we meet & she comments on how ‘advanced’ he is for his age,” the “shocked” mom wrote, in part.
“She doesn’t say anything else but later messages to say she didn’t realize my son would be walking already & please could I not bring him to the wedding.”
But the Redditor had already purchased non-refundable transportation and lodging a year in advance, anticipating the rising costs of travel and an 8-hour commute both ways.
Knowing she would be traveling with her infant, she “booked two nights near the wedding plus an additional night in the city on the way back” a year in advance.
“He’s still breastfeeding and I’ve never spent a night away from him at this point,” she said.
If she had known he wasn’t invited, she could have made arrangements for a sitter, but two weeks was too short notice.
“I tell her I’m sorry but I can’t not bring him now with such late notice,” she continued. “She suggests we get a babysitter but it’s super expensive and I’ve never left him with anyone before. I can tell she’s annoyed but she doesn’t say anything else.”
When they arrived at the ceremony, not only were there other babies and children, but the celebration had transformed into a christening rather than nuptials.
“They were calling it a celebration for friends and family,” she wrote. “There was a mix of ‘wedding’ speeches after the dinner and a lot of talk about the real wedding that was supposedly wonderful and also had speeches but that most of us hadn’t been invited to.”
Despite her son’s good behavior — he remained silent the entire time and slept after dinner — bridezilla’s mom insisted that they leave “immediately after dinner,” and she obliges.
Now, she claims the pair’s friendship is “ruined.”
“I accept that it’s her wedding and she should be able to specify her wants on her day but I feel like two weeks notice when I had planned carefully so far ahead in order to be able to attend was unfair, especially since other babies were there,” she concluded her post.
“Am I the a-hole?”
Fellow Redditors offered their two cents on the debacle, but opinions were split.
“I wanted to say Y-T-A for bringing son after she said specifically not to, but given the fact that you were told babies would be ok, I’m gonna say NTA,” one person wrote, adding that the woman’s son should still be considered a “baby.”
“Oooh maybe the real reason she’s mad is because your kid is more advanced than hers and when she saw that, she didn’t want him there,” suggested another.
“The title made me think this would be the opposite ruling, but NTA. The invite said babies were allowed. It didn’t say ‘only babies that can’t walk,'” someone else wrote. “And she seemingly gave you permission by accepting your answer when you said a babysitter wasn’t an option.”
They added: “IF she had offered to fully reimburse all your costs as an apology for basically uninviting you a few weeks before the wedding, that would be acceptable but still pretty rude IMO. But she was completely in the wrong here.”
“NTA — they had a whole ceremony around christening their baby? With speeches and everything? They didn’t even exchange vows? This sounds so off!” chided another.