John Edwards' daughter's wedding

[MyFamily]

The headline reads "John Edwards' Mistress Demands Their Love Child Be The Flower Girl in His Daughter's Wedding!'

http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/kiah-online-dish-edwards-wedding-story,0,2386226.story

Reading the story, it isn't that dramatic - yes, Rielle Hunter would like her child to be the flower girl, but Cate Edwards is not opposed to the idea.  The people who are opposed and being vocal about their opposition are Elizabeth Edwards' family. 

Reading this story, I don't know how rude Ms Hunter is being (did she demand or ask isn't clear and I won't judge based on this), but I do have to say that the rude people I find are Elizabeth Edwards' family for making an issue out of this rather than let Cate have her wedding drama free and the person who wrote this article.  I have no respect for Rielle Hunter (or other women who have affairs with married men), but I don't think it is okay to be calling her a hoochie.

[MyFamily]

I think Ms. Hunter is, perhaps, overstepping if she is in fact "insisting" that her daughter be in the wedding party.  That being said, the grandparents of the bride are definitely overstepping if they insist that the little girl not be there.  No matter what the circumstances, the child is the bride's half-sister and that relationship can be honored if the bride feels it appropriate to do so; it isn't the child's fault, after all.

I do agree that if Ms Hunter is insisting that would be rude, but the article is so horribly biased against her that I could almost see them calling it insisting if she happened to mention in passing to John that she'd like their daughter to be the flower girl and he passed the suggestion on to the bride, who was open to the suggestion.  If she is actually insisting, than that is another person being rude.  Which means I really do feel sorry for the bride and might suggest that she run off to Vegas and elope there because that would have to be better than the drama the rest of her family is creating.

[kglory]

I think it's up to the bride, and beyond that, it's nobody's business.

I can also see it being a totally made up story.  "Sources say"?  The only source it quotes is the National Enquirer, and random Facebook opinions!

As a tangential issue, I really dislike the term "love child."  It's kind of a slightly nicer way of calling the child a b******.  Neither is fair -- it's not the child's fault. 

[Master_Edward]

I completely agree with kglory, I'm wondering if the story isn't just made up trash. But for the sake of argument I'll say that if Cate is willing to have her younger half-sister in the wedding then it's nobody else's business. I don't see any reason to try and punish the little girl. The circumstances under which she was conceived and born aren't her fault. But if Elizabeth Edwards' family really is trying to keep her out of the wedding I wouldn't think very highly of them at all.

Ed.

[Winterlight]

I can sympathize with the grandparents dislike of Ms. Hunter and John Edwards. However, I think that selecting attendants should be up to the bride and everyone else should put a sock in it. Also, what idiot leaked this to the press? 

[ncgal]

As someone that lives in the area, I would say the truth to this story is slim to none.  Who ever Cates has in her wedding party and at her wedding is a decision that she and Trevor will have made together.  Now has she invited her little sister? I have not a clue, but then again, not my business.  I will be like everyone else and just read about it in the local paper and on the local news after the fact.