Author Topic: Rude to not postpone wedding?  (Read 12290 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21246
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #75 on: April 04, 2013, 12:07:51 PM »
It sounds to me like the parents watch too much TV.  Babies always seem to come in the middle of a wedding ceremony.  I feel bad for K, but she and her sister seem to have an understanding. Besides, the parents can easily arrange for both with i'm going to say 86% certainty  ;).  I am going to be 8 mothns pregnant at a family wedding and with  my first kid having to be evicted from the womb late, I had no second thoughts that I may not attend. However, after reading this thread, I am getting second thoughts that I may be too confident!

FWIW, on tv it is frequently the bride, her child or her parent who is the pregnant one (and it always happens during sweeps week)

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6085
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #76 on: April 04, 2013, 12:18:33 PM »
So let's say that you eliminate a couple weeks on either side of the due date.  Then there are probably at least a couple weeks post partum. You are probably expected to avoid any holiday weekends.  And once you eliminate those dates there is a chance you might run into a conflict with other family members, maybe even somebody on the groom's side.I guess they could always wait an entire calender year so they can hit the significant date again.  When you are as old as K does it really matter? Of course, C might be pregnant again by then...

But from what I can tell, the couple isn't concerned about running into conflict with any one else's schedule.

But to play along, let's say the sister is due the week of Jan 6th with the original date being Jan 11th, about 7 months out.  I'd probably start looking at the dates of Nov 10th - 24th or push it and look at Feb 15th - Mar 15th.  Still gives me lots of options to find a weekend that doesn't conflict with other family events if that is of a concern to me.

Believe, me if their date was a hard and fast date because of other work, school, or another factor like grooms sister will be in the country that weekend only and they've already committed to having the wedding when she is available, I wouldn't worry about the date. But I'm not enough of a romantic to prioritze an emotionally attachment to a date to not even consider moving the date.

I don't know this family dynamics. It could be that the bride has always played second fiddle to her sister and just doesn't want to do it again. That's fine, I'm not saying she needs to. I'm just stating what I would do.

That only works if nobody else on either side has planned a wedding/baby/tavel/event during that time.  Or if weather isn't an issue during that time. Or if the HC themselves don't have conflicts during that time.  And that the venue they need  is available.  Having all of those needs converge seem pretty unlikely to me.
I am not doing a good job of getting across what I'm trying to say.

In my above analogy I've given myself 7 Saturday options of an alternate date. I then have the ability to review other conflicts and find the one that works the best based on my and my fiance's priorities. If none of those 7 dates would work, for one reason or another, then I have to accept the fact that I won't be able to a)move the date far from my sister's due date or b)have the wedding within a few months of my original planned date.

Do I believe any date will be perfect? No, there is always be some type of conflict. I have two family weddings coming up. The both B&G's collected info on close family member schedules. One ended up having to schedule theirs in a different city the day after my DD's prom but looking at what they had to work around other family members events, that was the best they could do. The other is scheduled in our city, but is the weekend after my DD starts college out of state, and she is to be a BM. Would we rather not have to fly her back the next weekend after sending her off and have her miss class on her first week of school? Yes, but based on other family factors (one being the bride's sister's delivery date) and church availability that was the best they could do.

bah12

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4815
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #77 on: April 04, 2013, 12:32:19 PM »
So let's say that you eliminate a couple weeks on either side of the due date.  Then there are probably at least a couple weeks post partum. You are probably expected to avoid any holiday weekends.  And once you eliminate those dates there is a chance you might run into a conflict with other family members, maybe even somebody on the groom's side.I guess they could always wait an entire calender year so they can hit the significant date again.  When you are as old as K does it really matter? Of course, C might be pregnant again by then...

But from what I can tell, the couple isn't concerned about running into conflict with any one else's schedule.But to play along, let's say the sister is due the week of Jan 6th with the original date being Jan 11th, about 7 months out.  I'd probably start looking at the dates of Nov 10th - 24th or push it and look at Feb 15th - Mar 15th.  Still gives me lots of options to find a weekend that doesn't conflict with other family events if that is of a concern to me.

Believe, me if their date was a hard and fast date because of other work, school, or another factor like grooms sister will be in the country that weekend only and they've already committed to having the wedding when she is available, I wouldn't worry about the date. But I'm not enough of a romantic to prioritze an emotionally attachment to a date to not even consider moving the date.

I don't know this family dynamics. It could be that the bride has always played second fiddle to her sister and just doesn't want to do it again. That's fine, I'm not saying she needs to. I'm just stating what I would do.

See, the thing is, the couple isn't concerned about conflicting with her parents either.  They have no obligation to change the date because her mother demands it. 
And I get that some brides would do it for their mother.  Heck, if my mom had a legitimate conflict, I'd definitely have changed my wedding date for her to be there.  But, my mother wouldn't demand that I change my wedding so that she can wait by the phone for news of a baby's arrival.  She wouldn't have made it my responsibility to make sure that she doesn't have to parent more than one child at a time.  And most importantly, she wouldn't have diminshed my wedding and not listened to me when I told her about it, simply because she deemed me an "old bride."

And I really really do think that it's awfully expectant for someone not having a baby and not the father (or birthing coach) of that baby to think that anyone would alter a major milestone in thier life just to minimize the very remote possiblity that the baby will be born during the wedding ceremony.  I mean, C isn't even saying "It's ultra-important that mom is right there in the room with me the moment I give birth, no exceptions."  This is a mother who is only thinking of herself.  She deosn't seem to care that C will miss the wedding (yet, neither does C).  And she sounds exhausting.

And I also am having a hard time understanding how a parent wouldn't have the capacity to support two children through major life events at the same time.  I can't understand how one having a (presumably healthy) baby would in any way diminish the joy of watching her daughter marry.  I'm pretty sure that children have multiple things going on at the same time a lot.  Why would any parent expect that they would only deal with/love/support one child at a time.  I watch my sister balance five kids, with their injuries, sports, dance, school, graduations, etc constantly.  She once said "having many children doesn't divide my heart among them.  Instead, my heart has increased it's capacity to love 10 times for each child.  It's amazing."  One day, she'll be dealing with wedding, babies, etc....and with that many kids I would venture to say that a baby and wedding is bound to occur at the same time at some point.  And I'm pretty sure she'll recognize then that neither of those events are about her and be there for those kids the same as she always has.

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21246
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #78 on: April 04, 2013, 12:35:53 PM »
The thinng is - these parents apparently don't think a woman over 30 should have a weeding like this, period.  It sounds like they would object whether it conflicted with her sister's due date, their bridge club or a sale at Art Van. 

lmyrs

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1068
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #79 on: April 04, 2013, 12:38:12 PM »
My youngest sister's wedding was on my other sister's due date. Wedding was in the town other sister lived, but over 100 miles away from the hospital. The wedding was set before the baby was announced. Other sister was also a BM for Youngest Sister. Other sister's first baby was right on time but it was a very hard birth with Baby 1 staying in NICU for a couple weeks.

My mom was a bit worried about what would happen if baby came on wedding day. And everyone agreed: Go To Wedding. When wedding ceremony and maybe some visiting with the 300 out of town guests, she'd go to hospital. Perfectly reasonable compromise. 

And after all the worry, baby came over 6 weeks early and spent several weeks in NICU but was able to attend the wedding on the big day. Any attempts to reschedule the wedding would have been completely fruitless. Because babies so rarely come when convenient.

Hmmmmm

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6085
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #80 on: April 04, 2013, 01:53:44 PM »
The thinng is - these parents apparently don't think a woman over 30 should have a weeding like this, period.  It sounds like they would object whether it conflicted with her sister's due date, their bridge club or a sale at Art Van.

If the question in the subject line "Is it rude to diminish a weddings importance because of couple's age." that's what I would be discussing.

However, the subject is about postponement. And I don't think it's rude to not postpone, it would be something I would consider and not flat out say no.

(I think I've been facilitating too many meetings recently and trying to keep people on topic. I'm starting to repeat myself and not adding any value to this discussion anymore.)

fountainof

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 570
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #81 on: April 04, 2013, 08:07:31 PM »
I agree with some others that personal family situations, etc. colour our opinions.  In my area you find the place (church, reception location) first and then choose a date.  If you need an exact date you need to book 2 years in advance!!!  So for most couples it is chosen by first talking to your church and seeing what is free and then deciding if you like the dates and if you aren't church going you find an alternate location you like.  So changing a wedding date is not easy.  Especially because people really only get married between May and October here with the odd person here and there choosing a new year's eve or valentine's day wedding.

sammycat

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5609
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #82 on: April 04, 2013, 08:34:53 PM »
I agree with some others that personal family situations, etc. colour our opinions.  In my area you find the place (church, reception location) first and then choose a date. If you need an exact date you need to book 2 years in advance!!!  So for most couples it is chosen by first talking to your church and seeing what is free and then deciding if you like the dates and if you aren't church going you find an alternate location you like.  So changing a wedding date is not easy.

That's the experience of every wedding I've been too as well (including my own).  It's not as simple as saying 'pick another date'.  It may take months, or a year, to coordinate a venue and wedding location.

My reading of the OP's situation is that the parents have always put the pregnant sister ahead of the engaged sister. I would not, under any circumstances, change my wedding date in this situation. Engaged sister is entitled to her moment to shine. The pregnant sister seems fine with the date; the parents just look as though they are looking for an excuse to downplay engaged sister's situation (again?). I would not let them.

If I were pregnant sister and I just happened to go into labour on the wedding day, I would be 100% understanding of my parents going to the wedding. In fact, I'd insist on it. The baby will still be there a few hours later when the grandparents can visit. On the other hand, the wedding events can't just be put on hold until the parents turn up. If I were pregnant sister, I'd feel bad/guilty if my parents chose to sit in a waiting room for hours rather than attend my sister's wedding, and if I were engaged sister, I'd be furious/hurt that my parents chose to sit in a waiting room rather than attend my wedding.

MommyPenguin

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3847
    • My blog!
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #83 on: April 04, 2013, 09:28:03 PM »
Having had numerous babies (ha!) and had my parents generally come in a few days or a week before the birth, then stay a week or two after the birth to help out and watch the other kids, I still can't see a wedding, even an out-of-state wedding, right around the birth, being something they couldn't handle.  I'd need a backup plan for childcare, certainly (although that isn't really applicable to this story, as I think the OP said it was C's first).  But usually right after the baby is born, you're in the hospital for a couple of days, and exhausted, and getting used to a new baby... it's not the end of the world if the grandparents miss the first few days after the birth.  And that's being pessimistic, assuming that the baby was born as the grandparents were about to leave for the wedding, so that they had to miss the entire few days it took to travel to the wedding, enjoy the wedding and reception, and then travel to where I was with the new baby.  Think of how much fun they'd have sharing the news at the wedding reception!  The sister could send some pictures and hopefully somebody with a smartphone could show them.  I don't think that showing off some pictures of the new baby at the reception to other relatives would totally hijack the wedding, anyway (because how much of the time at the reception are people actually talking about the happy couple?  Probably not all that much, as most people enjoy the chance to chat and catch up, etc.).  And, of course, if the baby didn't arrive until the day of the wedding, or something like that, the parents could enjoy the wedding and reception, then fly to the sister's city to see the new baby afterwards.  I don't think missing the first two days of a new baby's life is *that* dreadful.

Now, of course, that assumes that the sister is okay with missing the wedding if she needs to.  And I think that's the issue that a lot of people are concerned about.  Personally, for a sibling's wedding (even though I don't really like my brother all that much), I'd probably do pretty much what it took, short of deliberately putting myself in a position to have birth in a different city without my doctor, to go to the wedding.  I wouldn't love doing it, but I'd try.  However, I think I'd tell him that, out of necessity, my RSVP would *have* to either be "maybe, if I can," or "no."  If he couldn't accept a maybe because he needed a firm headcount, I'd need to RSVP no.  But if he could handle a maybe (and my husband's as well), then I'd make it a maybe and try to be there if I could, assuming that I wasn't pregnant and within two weeks of birth, or had given birth within the week.  Unless it was local, then I'd go as long as I wasn't in the hospital.  (And actually, now that I've had 4 kids who were all late and had to be induced, I'd probably go almost up to the due date, assuming I didn't have to fly.)

lowspark

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3126
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #84 on: April 05, 2013, 09:31:50 AM »
I agree with some others that personal family situations, etc. colour our opinions.  In my area you find the place (church, reception location) first and then choose a date. If you need an exact date you need to book 2 years in advance!!!  So for most couples it is chosen by first talking to your church and seeing what is free and then deciding if you like the dates and if you aren't church going you find an alternate location you like.  So changing a wedding date is not easy.

That's the experience of every wedding I've been too as well (including my own).  It's not as simple as saying 'pick another date'.  It may take months, or a year, to coordinate a venue and wedding location.

My reading of the OP's situation is that the parents have always put the pregnant sister ahead of the engaged sister. I would not, under any circumstances, change my wedding date in this situation. Engaged sister is entitled to her moment to shine. The pregnant sister seems fine with the date; the parents just look as though they are looking for an excuse to downplay engaged sister's situation (again?). I would not let them.

If I were pregnant sister and I just happened to go into labour on the wedding day, I would be 100% understanding of my parents going to the wedding. In fact, I'd insist on it. The baby will still be there a few hours later when the grandparents can visit. On the other hand, the wedding events can't just be put on hold until the parents turn up. If I were pregnant sister, I'd feel bad/guilty if my parents chose to sit in a waiting room for hours rather than attend my sister's wedding, and if I were engaged sister, I'd be furious/hurt that my parents chose to sit in a waiting room rather than attend my wedding.

I agree with this whole post, especially the bolded.

It's interesting to read various viewpoints on this thread which come from different family dynamics and different family and regional differences in wedding planning and execution. As an example, gellchom's post of how a wedding in her case is not just the four hours of ceremony and reception, but a whole weekend of festivities with family and out of town guests, really would preclude the feasibility of the paragraph I bolded above.

However, this is not a hypothetical case of "what would you do in this situation?" It's a specific case where it's clear that the parents are hardly involved in the wedding at all, to the point of not even understanding or acknowledging what kind of wedding the daughter is having. If the parents were fully engaged in the planning and events surrounding the wedding, this question might not even be posted here because the dates would have been worked out and approved by all in advance. It's the fact that the parents have essentially separated themselves from recognizing their daughter's happiness and aspirations that is causing this issue in the first place.

Calistoga

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 401
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #85 on: April 05, 2013, 09:51:49 AM »
I think the parents are being very, very icky here.

I would hate to have my parents miss my big day, and my wedding day got moved around a lot because of conflicts with schedules and the like. But that was an issue of 1-2 days, which isn't going to make much of a difference here. If the baby is born early...your sister can't come, because she'll have an infant. If the baby is born on time...your sister can't come, because she'll be in labor. If the baby is born late... your sister will be very very pregnant and may not be able to attend. So it's not as if moving a week one way or the other is going to help.

So do the parents expect the couple to move their wedding up so that sister can come while she's still pregnant? Or back so that she can attend with a 6 month old? Either request is unfair.

I'd also hate to not have my mom there holding my hand for my first kid. So I understand things from both sisters. I do not understand the parents just blowing one kid off here.

Here's a question? Just how pregnant is sister? Her due date RIGHT NOW and her actual date of delivery could be pretty different- mine has already changed 3 times.

Eeep!

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 748
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #86 on: April 05, 2013, 02:03:46 PM »
So let's say that you eliminate a couple weeks on either side of the due date.  Then there are probably at least a couple weeks post partum. You are probably expected to avoid any holiday weekends.  And once you eliminate those dates there is a chance you might run into a conflict with other family members, maybe even somebody on the groom's side.I guess they could always wait an entire calender year so they can hit the significant date again.  When you are as old as K does it really matter? Of course, C might be pregnant again by then...

But from what I can tell, the couple isn't concerned about running into conflict with any one else's schedule.

But to play along, let's say the sister is due the week of Jan 6th with the original date being Jan 11th, about 7 months out.  I'd probably start looking at the dates of Nov 10th - 24th or push it and look at Feb 15th - Mar 15th.  Still gives me lots of options to find a weekend that doesn't conflict with other family events if that is of a concern to me.

Believe, me if their date was a hard and fast date because of other work, school, or another factor like grooms sister will be in the country that weekend only and they've already committed to having the wedding when she is available, I wouldn't worry about the date. But I'm not enough of a romantic to prioritze an emotionally attachment to a date to not even consider moving the date.

I don't know this family dynamics. It could be that the bride has always played second fiddle to her sister and just doesn't want to do it again. That's fine, I'm not saying she needs to. I'm just stating what I would do.

I would first like to note that the following is based on the fact that the OP has indicated that her and her sister have worked out their own arrangement and that the sister is fine with the plan.

That said, I really find the bolded above a huuuuge change.  You want a January wedding but would be willing to do November or February or March? That is moving into a whole different season of the year. If bride has had a dream of what her wedding would be like it very well could involve a season. For instance, I had dresses that I had designed for my bridesmaids. They were part of my planning. They were velvet. That made it that I wanted to have a winter wedding.  Now I realize that for many the bridesmaid dress might not be important, but something like location could be. Perhaps the bride wants to have it outside - 3 months would make a big difference.   A couple months could push the wedding into a busy season where finding a location would be more difficult. 
I just think this way more of an accommodation than changing the date of your wedding by a weekend or two, which I could see someone doing more easily.

When you add in that I think it sounds abundantly clear that the parents don't really care about the bride's wedding one way or another, I think she should keep in on the date that is the anniversary of when her and her future husband first said I love you. That is a sweet - and legitimate - reason to pick a date.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2013, 02:11:02 PM by Eeep! »
"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21246
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #87 on: April 05, 2013, 03:42:11 PM »
Yeah, a lot of people I know are teachers so the go to time for a wedding is over summer vacations because you can't schedule your vacation days so you take them when they fall.  Changing to another season could well mean weather so bad people can't make it, a schedule that would mean the HC couldn't then go on a honeymoon, etc.

gellchom

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1949
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #88 on: April 05, 2013, 04:52:42 PM »
I think that the parents' behavior, right now and historically, is a red herring.  Even their feelings, legitimate or not, aren't the point.

What about C?  Sure, she said she's fine with it.  That is the nice thing to say.  She sounds very nice.  But chances are pretty significant that she won't be able to attend the wedding, especially if she lives in a different city.

And C and K seem to have a lovely relationship.  Are they the only siblings?

So: is a romantic date more important to K than having C be able to attend?  I mean, never mind what the parents want or whether anyone is pressuring her unfairly -- what does K herself want in terms of avoiding the time her sister is due?

It's really easy to add factors like a certain season being a bride's dream wedding and the like.  But no one said that's the case here.  I think that when we dream up hypotheticals like that, we are just trying to find a way to urge K to refuse even to CONSIDER changing to another date because we are so outraged that the parents have always favored C.  And that, to me, is just cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I'm with Hmmmmm.  If I were K, I'd ignore the pressure factor and look at how I wanted things to go.  If I wanted to maximize the chances of having everyone at my wedding and not wearing everyone, including myself out, with too much all at once (and minimizing the horrible possibility of something going wrong with the pregnancy or birth right around the time of the wedding), then I'd take a look at the calendar.  If I could easily move to a different date, say at least a couple weeks farther from the due date, then I think that is what I would do. 

I know that my situation isn't K's, and the question isn't what I would do, it's what she should do.  But at the same time, it's projecting onto her to assume that her goal is to punish her parents or to "stand her ground" or whatever. 


HoneyBee42

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 513
Re: Rude to not postpone wedding?
« Reply #89 on: April 05, 2013, 07:54:24 PM »
I think it is interesting how much our backgrounds color how we see the situation.

My own experience--when my brother got married the first time, I *was* already pregnant w/ a due date the first week of June when he announced his wedding date would be Father's Day (third Sunday in June, or in other words approximately two weeks after my due date -- I lived 900 miles away and *no way* would I and my newborn be cleared for that kind of a journey if he had shown up on his due date).  As it turned out, I gave birth 5 weeks early due to a serious pregnancy complication.  My second son spent a week in the extra care (just below NICU) nursery w/ issues re: oxygen sats and jaundice.  We did get clearance to travel, so I went to the wedding.

OTOH, I would rather walk hot coals while chewing cut glass than have my parents present *while* I am giving birth.  I've known other people who have had explicit plans to *not tell* the parents (one or both sides) when labor begins, and may even have part of the birth plan include "security will escort out if they show up anyway" w/ respect to one or more of the grandparents of the child being born.  C might well be *happy* that her parents have something to potentially distract them from showing up when she's in childbirth ... except they're not biting.

Since K and C are both good with their plans regarding the potential overlap of wedding day and baby's birth, I don't think the parents' wishes need to be accommodated, particularly in view of the fact that they are so utterly dismissive of their "geriatric" daughter's wedding.  They don't *need* to be present at the child's birth, and we quite frankly don't even know that C wants them to be.  Waiting for the phone call "good news, 'baby' is here, weighs so much, is this long" can be done anywhere ... including K's wedding and reception.  (But then, I'm the sort who expects to simply wait for the phone call and invitation to see the baby unless my daughter or potential future daughters-in-law explicitly requests my presence, first grandchild or whatever number thereafter.)