Author Topic: Possibly the most outrageous request I've ever heard! Update pg. 9, 15, 20, 29  (Read 74264 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Shoo

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 16393
I'm of the school of thought that people who go Bridezilla-ish when they're getting married aren't just sufferint from temporary insanity. I think they're showing their true colors.

POD. Plenty of brides and grooms are stressed out about their weddings. Plenty of people are stressed about life, in general. Many of them still manage to be thoughtful of others.

Laura didn't have to have Susan in family wedding photos if she didn't want to. DH and I had a BWW, but we didn't have extended family in posed photos.

But Susan isn't extended family.  She's the groom's sister!  That's immediate family.

Depends on your viewpoint. Once the bride and groom are married (and possibly have kids, or bride and bride, groom and groom are married - as discussed up thread by others) they are immediate family and their siblings, parents, etc. are generally then considered extended family.

So you would apply that to the very instant they got married, so that brothers and sisters could be left out of the wedding pictures? 

I find that very strange.

Twik

  • A Pillar of the Forum
  • *****
  • Posts: 28731
There's no requirement to take wedding pictures at all.

If they want to have them, they can be HC only, HC plus parents only, HC+parents+siblings, HC+everyone they've ever met.

What they can't do (without causing serious offense) is have all the other siblings, or all their friends, and leave one sister out because she's not "perfect" enough.
My cousin's memoir of love and loneliness while raising a child with multiple disabilities will be out on Amazon soon! Know the Night, by Maria Mutch, has been called "full of hope, light, and companionship for surviving the small hours of the night."

wyliefool

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1905
Personally, I think she shd invite Oscar Pistorius to attend as her date (hopefully wearing his nifty racing legs).  8)

Asharah

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3948
Personally, I think she shd invite Oscar Pistorius to attend as her date (hopefully wearing his nifty racing legs).  8)
But how would her husband feel about that?  ;D
Asharah

Danika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1961
  • I'm not speeding. I'm qualifying.
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.

violinp

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3630
  • cabbagegirl28's my sister :)
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.

But...biologically, they're still immediate family.  ??? My sister and parents don't start being extended family just because I made promises to my (hypothetical) DH. They are extended family to my spouse, as is his family to me. For the record, I'm of a religion that subscribes to the aforementioned leaving and cleaving. To me, extended family is my grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and all the "greats," not my biologically immediate family.
"It takes a great deal of courage to stand up to your enemies, but even more to stand up to your friends" - Harry Potter


Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4744
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.

But...biologically, they're still immediate family.  ??? My sister and parents don't start being extended family just because I made promises to my (hypothetical) DH. They are extended family to my spouse, as is his family to me. For the record, I'm of a religion that subscribes to the aforementioned leaving and cleaving. To me, extended family is my grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, and all the "greats," not my biologically immediate family.

Right,t he way I see it, immediate family is one degree of separation.  Your mother and father each contributed genes, and they also contributed to your siblings.  One degree out is where extended starts... grandparents are contributed to your parents' genes, who contributed to yours.  Aunts/uncles are related directly to your parents, but are extended *to you*.  I can't imagine my mother being thought of as extended family.  She's most certainly immediate.
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

Danika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1961
  • I'm not speeding. I'm qualifying.
Here's a definition of extended family. I think it could go either way.

"A family that extends beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, who all live nearby or in one household."

I consider my nuclear family to be me, DH and our kids. We live in the same house and we don't live with any of the others. DH and I were in our 20s when we married and had not lived with our parents for 10 years, so we already considered them to be extended family. That doesn't mean that other people have to go by my definition, but to us, we define our parents as extended family.

My original point was that while many people might choose to have their siblings in wedding photos. I know many others who have not. If Louise and Dave are paying for the photographer, it should not be assumed that for certain Susan would be included in a lot of the photos. Especially if she wasn't in the wedding party to begin with, which Louise should never have invited her to be a part of if she were not comfortable with Susan, for whatever reason.

Diane AKA Traska

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4744
  • Or you can just call me Diane. (NE USA EHellion)
Here's a definition of extended family. I think it could go either way.

"A family that extends beyond the nuclear family, including grandparents, aunts, uncles, and other relatives, who all live nearby or in one household."

I consider my nuclear family to be me, DH and our kids. We live in the same house and we don't live with any of the others. DH and I were in our 20s when we married and had not lived with our parents for 10 years, so we already considered them to be extended family. That doesn't mean that other people have to go by my definition, but to us, we define our parents as extended family.

My original point was that while many people might choose to have their siblings in wedding photos. I know many others who have not. If Louise and Dave are paying for the photographer, it should not be assumed that for certain Susan would be included in a lot of the photos. Especially if she wasn't in the wedding party to begin with, which Louise should never have invited her to be a part of if she were not comfortable with Susan, for whatever reason.

By that definition, a student away at college has no immediate family.
Location:
Philadelphia, PA

Elfmama

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6228
Especially if she wasn't in the wedding party to begin with, which Louise should never have invited her to be a part of if she were not comfortable with Susan, for whatever reason.
I think a PP was dead on target when they said that Susan was asked to be in the wedding party so that Louise could dictate her dress and hide her arm.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
It's true. Money can't buy happiness.  You have to turn it
into books first.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

baglady

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4652
  • A big lass and a bonny lass and she loves her beer
By my definition, immediate family = one's parents, siblings, spouse(s) and children. Not grandparents/grandkids, cousins or in-laws. My grandmother and aunts are members of my parent's immediate family but not mine. My spouse's siblings are members of his immediate family but not mine. My sister's spouse is a member of her immediate family but not mine. My kids are members of my spouse's and my immediate family but not our parents' or siblings'.*

But we don't need to get bogged down with definitions of what does and doesn't constitute immediate family, and who should or shouldn't be in the "family" photos. That's up to the B&G to decide. Bottom line is, family or not, photos or no photos, Louise is not being very nice to Susan.

*Generic "my/mine" -- I don't have a spouse, kids or living grandparents.

My photography is on Redbubble! Come see: http://www.redbubble.com/people/baglady

HonorH

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2977
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.

Okay, but whom did you consider "immediate family" at your wedding? I understand calling your husband and children your "immediate family" once you're established, but, short of living together and having children beforehand, if you had an "immediate family-only" wedding, would that mean only you and your fiance/husband would have been there? Or would that designation have included parents and siblings?
William wondered why he always disliked people who said "no offense meant." Maybe it was because they found it easier to say "no offense meant" than actually to refrain from giving offense.

--Terry Pratchett, The Truth

Danika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1961
  • I'm not speeding. I'm qualifying.
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.

Okay, but whom did you consider "immediate family" at your wedding? I understand calling your husband and children your "immediate family" once you're established, but, short of living together and having children beforehand, if you had an "immediate family-only" wedding, would that mean only you and your fiance/husband would have been there? Or would that designation have included parents and siblings?

We didn't have an immediate family-only wedding. We had a BWW full of friends and extended family. DH and I are closer to our friends than we are to family members. Our photographer was instructed to take photos of the wedding party, me with the bridesmaids, DH with his groomsmen, all of us (DH, me, BMs and groomsen) together. DH and I don't have full-blood siblings, so I've never considered that either way. DH had foster siblings and there are adult children of his new step-mother, but she married his father only a few years before we married. He hasn't met them and we didn't even know their full names to invite them, much less have photos with them.

rose red

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7821
Just because the bride might not want Susan in the pictures because she's not "immediate" family doesn't mean the groom (the brother) doesn't want his sister and other "immediate" family in the pictures.  And if the bride refuses to be in any pictures with the groom’s family, he better take a good hard look at the person he’s marrying.

Aeris

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9640
I didn't use the term "family wedding photos" I said "extended family." I don't think of siblings and parents as immediate family now that I'm married. But that's because I belong to another board where that's the concensus. Many of the religious folks on that board (and I'm not religious) even use the term "leave and cleave" to explain why they think this.


Sure you did.


<snip>
Laura didn't have to have Susan in family wedding photos if she didn't want to. DH and I had a BWW, but we didn't have extended family in posed photos.


Most people use the term 'family wedding photos' to mean 'photos with the bride and groom and one or both of their original immediate families'. Using the term to mean 'pictures of just the bride and groom alone' would be unusual and a bit odd.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2012, 09:09:21 PM by Aeris »