Author Topic: Possibly the most outrageous request I've ever heard! Update pg. 9, 15, 20, 29  (Read 74365 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Danika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1963
  • 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.


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.

Let me correct myself and use correct phrasing and semantics then. Here's what I was trying to say:

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

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21610
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.

Let me correct myself and use correct phrasing and semantics then. Here's what I was trying to say:

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

I would say her husband would have equal say in that.

Danika

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1963
  • 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.


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.

Let me correct myself and use correct phrasing and semantics then. Here's what I was trying to say:

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

I would say her husband would have equal say in that.

I would agree.

But she'll have to discuss it with him. And it sounds like she'd rather lie and throw Susan under then bus than discuss things like this with him.

sparksals

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 17385
What one considers to be immediate family vs extended is subjective and dependent upon one's beliefs.  I can see why Danika views her nuclear family as immediate.  She has no siblings, nor does her husband except for foster siblings and step siblings he has never met.  This is a very personal thing and not a clear cut definition. 

For the record, I consider my parents and sibling and Dh's parents and siblings to be 'immediate'.  That doesn't mean everyone does.  It all depends on the relationship, if the grew up together etc. 

Asharah

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3948
Are we getting a little off-topic here?
Asharah

snowdragon

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2200
OP: Updates?

wyliefool

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1906
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

I had forgotten about him, yes. But he might be willing to step aside for the day just to annoy Louise.  ;)

Roe

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6474
Are we getting a little off-topic here?

You think?  ;)

I'm more interested to find out if there are any updates.  OP?   ;D

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 13074
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Are we really analyzing the vague terms "immediate" and "extended" in the context of whether the groom's sister should or shouldn't be in some official wedding photos? Personally, I think that excluding the groom's sister from any official photo would be wrong. That's true whether she was excluded because she wasn't "immediate" enough or because she had a prosthetic arm.
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

ScubaGirl

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 560
Op, still no news?

Brockwest

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
The sister should not go to the wedding and should calmly respond with the truth when asked that "the bride doesn't like that I don't have an arm." There are several reasons for this.  First, since the bride will become part of the family, this will be the first of many such possible confrontations...birthdays, holidays, special events. It's not something that will go away, and should be faced now. Second, the true story needs to come out as I firmly believe the bride will blame the sister for not coming to the wedding, so the sister needs truth to be on her side. Third, the bride's behavior and how it will affect the family in years to come needs to be addressed prior to the wedding.  I absolutely believe the sister's parents will be outraged.  It's better to find out before the wedding how far the problem will go, and if a wedding should even take place.
It is not at all rude for the sister to tell the truth. I don't feel telling the truth is the same as putting posters up in the neighborhood or taking out an ad in the newspaper.
Substitute for the word disability, the words race/religion/place of origin, and see if you would still want the sister to remain quiet.  "You can't come to the wedding because you are the wrong race/relgion/place of origin."
I don't believe the sister's parents will attend the wedding. 
I would not attend the wedding. 

Let's try looking at it another way, for the posters who want the sister to stay silent. Say it is your child that has a disability and someone insists you do something to hide their disability and tells your child. How would you feel?  What would you do?  Would that person still be standing after you heard them tell your child to hide their disability/crutches/wheelchair/face?

sammycat

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6146
I completely agree with you, Brockwest. 

And welcome to the board!  :)

Brockwest

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 28
Thank you Sam!

artk2002

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 13074
    • The Delian's Commonwealth
Perhaps Dave needs to share EHellDame's latest blog post with Louise.  http://www.etiquettehell.com/?p=3452
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bow lines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover. -Mark Twain

Salvage3

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1577
Brockwest, I totally agree with your very-well-written posting.  And I also welcome you aboard.