OP: I'd be interested in hearing more about why BIL is on bad terms with the parents and has zero relationship with the step parents. And how old was he when his parents got divorced?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is one of those weird things where, yeah, the BIL should technically give them a plus one, but the parents should also respect their child's wishes so he wouldn't be in this dilemma.

Don't agree. If the adult groom cannot respect other's relationships, including his parents, then there is no reason to celebrate his.

And "technically" it is the epitome of bad etiquette to purposely exclude someone's spouse. The groom needs to be asked if it's OK to purposely exclude HIS wife from all future family events. How will that go over?

That was the point of my post? The BIL should give them a plus one, you kind of can't NOT do that, but at the same time, the parents should be the bigger people and do the right thing. It's his day, and clearly they failed at helping cultivating a relationship between their partners and BIL.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I guess you think it's better for someone to spend the rest of their life with a spouse who denigrates and dismisses them, cheats on them, hides money, and doesn't bother to spend any quality time with the kids.

THAT is much better than getting a divorce, I suppose. Because hey, guess what?!! You might get to sit next to that same pathetic excuse for a spouse at your kids' weddings some day!

Whee! Sign me up for that choice...

No?

I think — and it’s pretty well documented— that divorce is a major trauma for children. It can be done for all the right reasons and be ultimately the right decision and it will still be traumatic.

So if your child, now an adult, still has issues by the time they’re getting married, the parents who made the choice to divorce get to experience one of the obvious consequences of that choice and have to sit at a table with people they may not have preferred to for an event lasting up to six hours. I’m sorry that seems so unfair to you.

Grow up, PP. You sound ridiculous.

+ A Million.

Or should I say millions. Because that's how many people are children of divorce and have had NO "trauma" which lasts them well into adulthood. Not just here in the US but around the world.

I would say that for some people (perhaps PP?) if being the adult child of divorce is still "traumatic" and "unfair" then they have no clue how the vast majority of the world lives. And are missing fundamental human resiliency which most adults have.

No I’m the child of a 50 year marriage that ended in my mother’s death, married to the child of a 50+ year marriage which will likely end in mu FIK’s death.

But since we have doctors in the family who read and discuss long term studies on the impact of divorce on children, i have to tell you the vast majority of humans are not children of divorce and that there is quantitative data about the impacts of those who are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I guess you think it's better for someone to spend the rest of their life with a spouse who denigrates and dismisses them, cheats on them, hides money, and doesn't bother to spend any quality time with the kids.

THAT is much better than getting a divorce, I suppose. Because hey, guess what?!! You might get to sit next to that same pathetic excuse for a spouse at your kids' weddings some day!

Whee! Sign me up for that choice...

No?

I think — and it’s pretty well documented— that divorce is a major trauma for children. It can be done for all the right reasons and be ultimately the right decision and it will still be traumatic.

So if your child, now an adult, still has issues by the time they’re getting married, the parents who made the choice to divorce get to experience one of the obvious consequences of that choice and have to sit at a table with people they may not have preferred to for an event lasting up to six hours. I’m sorry that seems so unfair to you.

Grow up, PP. You sound ridiculous.

+ A Million.

Or should I say millions. Because that's how many people are children of divorce and have had NO "trauma" which lasts them well into adulthood. Not just here in the US but around the world.

I would say that for some people (perhaps PP?) if being the adult child of divorce is still "traumatic" and "unfair" then they have no clue how the vast majority of the world lives. And are missing fundamental human resiliency which most adults have.

BIL is so messed up marriage won't last long anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I guess you think it's better for someone to spend the rest of their life with a spouse who denigrates and dismisses them, cheats on them, hides money, and doesn't bother to spend any quality time with the kids.

THAT is much better than getting a divorce, I suppose. Because hey, guess what?!! You might get to sit next to that same pathetic excuse for a spouse at your kids' weddings some day!

Whee! Sign me up for that choice...

No?

I think — and it’s pretty well documented— that divorce is a major trauma for children. It can be done for all the right reasons and be ultimately the right decision and it will still be traumatic.

So if your child, now an adult, still has issues by the time they’re getting married, the parents who made the choice to divorce get to experience one of the obvious consequences of that choice and have to sit at a table with people they may not have preferred to for an event lasting up to six hours. I’m sorry that seems so unfair to you.

Grow up, PP. You sound ridiculous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I guess you think it's better for someone to spend the rest of their life with a spouse who denigrates and dismisses them, cheats on them, hides money, and doesn't bother to spend any quality time with the kids.

THAT is much better than getting a divorce, I suppose. Because hey, guess what?!! You might get to sit next to that same pathetic excuse for a spouse at your kids' weddings some day!

Whee! Sign me up for that choice...

No?

I think — and it’s pretty well documented— that divorce is a major trauma for children. It can be done for all the right reasons and be ultimately the right decision and it will still be traumatic.

So if your child, now an adult, still has issues by the time they’re getting married, the parents who made the choice to divorce get to experience one of the obvious consequences of that choice and have to sit at a table with people they may not have preferred to for an event lasting up to six hours. I’m sorry that seems so unfair to you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I guess you think it's better for someone to spend the rest of their life with a spouse who denigrates and dismisses them, cheats on them, hides money, and doesn't bother to spend any quality time with the kids.

THAT is much better than getting a divorce, I suppose. Because hey, guess what?!! You might get to sit next to that same pathetic excuse for a spouse at your kids' weddings some day!

Whee! Sign me up for that choice...

Anonymous wrote:I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Where was the love and generosity of spirit when it came time to traumatize BIL by breaking up his childhood home?

Generosity of spirit in this case is about recognizing that the choices of the parents had an adverse affect on their child, and that the parents can live with the consequences of the choice they made. Now that he’s marrying there’s going to be a lot of situations where they will get to live the consequences of their choices, like getting 1/3 Christmas instead of 1/2, etc.

I hate weddings like this. Long divorced parents can't bring their significant others. No kids, no exceptions. Don't bring your same sex partner. Mixed race couple? You can come but we're seating you with some random co-workers and long lost cousins in the hallway.

It's their day and they can invite or exclude whoever they want but many of us enjoy weddings where there's love and generosity of spirit.

Anonymous wrote:Definitely stay out of it.

That said, going solo to a wedding is not a hardship and imo the step parents should graciously suck it up. The kid is in the wrong, but it’s an easy opportunity to take the high road and recognize that divorce traumatizes kids and they carry it with them.

Re: kids at the wedding. For immediate family, the bride and groom should rent a suite or meeting room at a hotel nearby and hire a sitter agency (background checked, etc). Get popcorn and snacks for them and they have a movie night during the reception. Local agencies will even set up games and such if there are enough kids.

If this is something important to OP or her in laws she can certainly offer to organize and pay for such a service. The bride and groom do not have to, as long as they accept parents may RSVP “no”.

This service, which we did something similar to, ran us $5,000 14 years ago, and you can’t spend other people’s money.

Definitely stay out of it.

That said, going solo to a wedding is not a hardship and imo the step parents should graciously suck it up. The kid is in the wrong, but it’s an easy opportunity to take the high road and recognize that divorce traumatizes kids and they carry it with them.

Re: kids at the wedding. For immediate family, the bride and groom should rent a suite or meeting room at a hotel nearby and hire a sitter agency (background checked, etc). Get popcorn and snacks for them and they have a movie night during the reception. Local agencies will even set up games and such if there are enough kids.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being the last married doesn’t give you less of a right to have an adults-only wedding. But any bride or groom must accept that more parents will send regrets if accommodations aren’t made for kids. More, not all.

On the matter of plus ones…yeah, it stinks. It absolutely stinks to be the child of divorce whose parents playacted a family unit at your siblings wedding and now are bored of the act when its your turn. BIL needs to have an honest discussion with his parents about how he feels, though, not throw a petulant fit.

When we got married, FIL was not yet married. MIL did not have a boyfriend back then. It isn’t like we didn’t give them a plus one. We gave everyone a plus one or I’m pretty sure people just RSVPd a plus one.

Yeah I get it— you got to have your wedding without any step parents and random partners because you got married first. Your in laws played happy families for your spouse.

It doesn’t mean it doesn’t suck for your BIL that they don’t do the same for his. Perhaps these family dynamics are why he doesn’t have a good relationship with either parent. I’d stay out of it, but maybe consider having empathy rather than scorn.

Anonymous wrote:Being the last married doesn’t give you less of a right to have an adults-only wedding. But any bride or groom must accept that more parents will send regrets if accommodations aren’t made for kids. More, not all.

On the matter of plus ones…yeah, it stinks. It absolutely stinks to be the child of divorce whose parents playacted a family unit at your siblings wedding and now are bored of the act when its your turn. BIL needs to have an honest discussion with his parents about how he feels, though, not throw a petulant fit.

When we got married, FIL was not yet married. MIL did not have a boyfriend back then. It isn’t like we didn’t give them a plus one. We gave everyone a plus one or I’m pretty sure people just RSVPd a plus one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I would stay TF out of it! Not your circus.

+1

(But yes they both should have a +1, cause wtf?!)

+2