From not wearing white, sticking to your RSVP response and keeping punctual to the day's itinerary - there are some rules when it comes to weddings that are simply absolute.
However, not everything is so clear cut as one woman has reopened the heated wedding etiquette debate after defending her decision to bring her baby to her pal's big day - despite being asked not to.
Advert
The woman took to the 'Am I the A**hole?' thread on Reddit to rehash the situation.
She began by explaining the bride in question was one of her 'very close friends'.
"Invites went out a year in advance and I was pregnant at the time," she penned. "They asked that children not attend (with a couple of exceptions for family) but stated that babies were allowed to attend."
The woman 'immediately booked the travel, car hire and hotels' to make sure she could afford to go by the time the special day came about.
Advert
She added: "[The] wedding was in the middle of nowhere so I also wanted to make sure I could stay close to the venue as I’d be travelling with baby."
And then, just two weeks before the wedding, things seemed to go a little pear-shaped when she and the bride met up for a catch-up.
She explained: "My son was an early walker, walking at eight months. He’s almost a year old when we meet and she comments on how 'advanced' he is for his age.
Advert
"She doesn’t say anything else but later messages to say she didn’t realise my son would be walking already and please could I not bring him to the wedding."
"He’s still breastfeeding and I’ve never spent a night away from him at this point," she stated. "If I’d known he wasn’t invited from the start I could have made other arrangements but I have no options now."
The woman then told the bride: "I’m sorry but I can’t not bring him now with such late notice."
The bride later suggested the mum 'get a babysitter', but that option was 'super expensive' and she had 'never left him with anyone before'.
Advert
"I can tell she’s annoyed but she doesn’t say anything else," the woman added.
So, she ended up attending the wedding with her child and found there were 'about four other babies his age there', but none of them were walking.
"There are also about three other young children ages approx 4-7," she continued.
Advert
Describing her little one as 'good as gold', the mum also noted she took him out 'during the speeches just to be safe'.
Despite all that, it's clear someone was far from happy.
"The bride’s mother approaches me immediately after dinner and basically strongly suggests we leave now," the woman wrote.
Understandably upset and feeling 'unwelcome' by the request, also given that she had only been at the event for 'three hours' after it took 'eight hours' to travel there, the woman ended up leaving.
She concluded: "It’s kind of ruined our friendship as I feel that she behaved badly.
"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.
"Am I the a-hole?"
Over seven-hundred people have since flooded into the comments to share their verdict on the matter, with one Reddit user stating: "That's on the bride for not being more specific with her rules. 'Baby' is too vague a definition when you're going to be a stickler for details like she was. 'No kids between six months and eight years' would've been more clear, IMO."
A second echoed: "How do you know in advance, when making your travel plans, how old your child will be when they start to walk? Eight months is super early."
"You were caught between a rock and a hard place," added a final Reddit user who stated both the bride and the friend 'switched up the terms at the last minute'.
Where do you stand?
Rhiannon Ingle