10 year old snubbed at wedding

@Grammarnut An Elizabethan would have considered his cousin's wife's cousin part of his 'family' i.e. eligible for patronage and general help in his/her career/marriage etc.

True, but there were still very clear levels of closest family, more distant family. A sibling was viewed as closer family than a cousin etc.

And afaik at no point in history would a step-daughter be considered exactly the same as a daughter. Blood and inheritance were strict.

A man would give his daughter a bigger dowry than a step-daughter (who had a living father to provide for her, even if that father chose not to). A grandparent would be seen as perfectly reasonable in leaving property to their blood grandchild but not a step-grandchild.

Illegitimate children would be considered lucky to be acknowledged. Family members were cut off for marrying the wrong person let alone having a child out of wedlock.

So in some ways we are much more open and accepting today than previously.

We also have a social security net provided by the government, making the wider family security net less vital. Imo that goes a long way in explaining why our concept of family has become more nuclear. My wife's cousin can work and support him/herself, or apply for welfare, rather than needing my direct help.

That is mean spirited and horrible. Blood is everything to some people. My dad used to carry a wallet stuffed with pictures of his grandchildren. He showed it to me once. Looked nonplussed when I said there are no pictures of my kids in here. Mine are adopted.

We have changed the concept of 'family' over the last hundred years or so. For an ancient Roman the slaves in his house (even though he might rape the women etc and sell them) were part of his 'family' and if he freed them they became part of his patronage system. 500 years ago Henry VIII needed a dispensation to marry his brother's widow. In the same century Philip II of Spain got a dispensation to marry his sister's daughter, his niece (nasty genetic result from this for the Hapsburgs later!). In Victorian England marrying your widowed sister-in-law was deeply frowned on and in some quarters considered incest as was marrying your dead wife's sister.
In the 500 years since Henry had his spat with the Pope the idea of family has narrowed. An Elizabethan would have considered his cousin's wife's cousin part of his 'family' i.e. eligible for patronage and general help in his/her career/marriage etc. We no longer consider such a relationship to exist i.e. they are not family.
I did not say that what we did 100 years ago has bearing on what we do now but it is of interest to see how 'family' has narrowed over the generations so that we now have the nuclear family which is isolated quite often from wider family bonds. It is also suspicious in that our familial bonds have been broken, which has an effect on our interconnectedness as humans - why? Who does this fragmentation serve?

Weddings are, and always have been, events with lots of in-groups/out-groups.

Who is maid of honour. Who is a bridesmaid. Who is at the hen party or stag do. Who is invited to the ceremony and who is invited to the meal. Who is given a plus one. Who is seated at the main table next to the bride and groom. Who gives a speech. Who is in the various photos.

This aspect of weddings is widely known and acknowledged so I would argue guests should either just deal with it or decide not to go.

I do think that wedding photos can be awkward at the best of times even though it's normal and fine to have categories.

Of course, but the post reminded me of a wedding where the photos were all by category and I wasn't in any of the categories. And no I don't remember there being a general photo.

The 10 year old is in fact an odd one out, but the poor manners lie in pointing it out. It also revealed that the husband agrees with his relatives which is an awfully awkward thing to have confirmed especially in public.

I just can't imagine running a family, or any, event in such a way that there's an in group and an out group. I'd want everyone to feel included if possible.

In fairness, the OP says herself that it was her own behaviour that upset both daughters, and doesn’t suggest the ten year old had been in any way upset by her sister being taken off for photos.

Were you there?

See I think that you can build meaningful relationships with unrelated children without having to pretend that they are the same as your own grandchildren or nieces or nephews. There are people who have close relationships with their parents friends who have known them a long time.

I don't think forcing people to play pretend when they don't want to helps with this at all.

The child was absolutely fine about it until she saw her mother create a scene and cause a bad atmosphere.

You’re missing the point that the DH happily took blood relation photos without his stepdaughter too. If he acknowledges the difference, why are you expecting MIL and SIL not to?

It’s always women against women on here.

I find this especially strange coming from an adult.

Why would it make you feel rubbish to not be included in the groom's family photo if in fact you're a friend of the bride?

If you're not in a single wedding photo I can see how that could be a bit hurtful. Normally there's always one big photo with everyone though.

"Do people really think like this",
Yes sadly I think they do. I'm not in SIL wedding photos although DH and our DC are! She apparantly didn't want us to split and ruin her album.
DH and I are still together 30 years later, her marriage lasted 4 years.

It's so mean to exclude a child. Wedding photos should be a record of a cherished day not some sort of formal photographic family tree.

That said OP, I think it would have been better if you'd shown your ire after the event.

There just isn’t a connection between myself and his nephew’s and nieces. I always thought I’d love being an aunty but honestly zero connection to those children.

I wouldn’t shun them when around but they are not really on my radar to see something and go oh jenny would love that, be nice to have Thomas round for activity as he likes that. I actually don’t know what they like nor does Dh I text their mum for gift ideas and buy off the list.

I personally hate it at weddings when they separate people into groups by category. I've been that person who didn't fall into a category and it does make you feel a bit rubbish.

It's not up to a 10 year old to be the bigger person.

Gosh thats a bit sad, my kids are very bonded to their cousins even though our families lived all over the Country. My adult nephews and neices still call me auntie and give me a big hug at any family get togethers.

Brutally honest here. I don’t see dh’s nieces and nephew’s as mine. They are his siblings children and they came well after our marriage. Sure we send gifts and cards but I don’t feel like an aunty I wouldn’t ever ask to take them out somewhere or even call my self Aunty Bella.

If I did ever divorce Dh I’d never see them again, even if we didn’t divorce and he died I’d never see them again. I don’t think we even have photos of our children and them together not as a whole group. They live 15 minutes up the road and we have seen them once this year off the top of my head.

They think it because, in many cases, they’ve already had it happen to them, when children they’ve thought of as beloved nieces or grandchildren have been abruptly removed from any further contact with them when a relationship broke up, and they’ve never seen them again. It happened to my parents with my sister’s partner’s children, whom they adored. Now, although she’s been married to the father of her stepchildren for years, I can see them keeping their distance. I don’t blame them. They still grieve the previous loss.

Those saying it was fine for MIL to exclude a child her DS has been a Father to for 7 years (and is the only Father she has ever known) from the photos "because you might spilt up one day", do people really go through life thinking like this?

SIL has married someone with 2 children from a previous relationship. So as far as DH and I are concerned we now have 3 neices instead of 1. We treat them all equally and wouldn't dream of doing otherwise. No one in our family would. I'm not going to make innocent children feel unwelcome and excluded now because there's a possibility that SIL and their Dad "might" spilt up one day in the future. They might not!
This place is full of threads about GP's who don't give a shit about seeing their "blood" GC, men who walk away from their "blood" DC and "blood" siblings who hate each other and are NC. So let's not kid ourselves that biology is the key to permanence in family relationships.

There's blood/adoptive family and there's family by marriage. Both are a type of family but that doesn't make them exactly the same. There is also family by choice e.g. friends who are seen as family.

My MIL is a lovely woman. I do not view her as my actual mother though. She's family, but not my nearest and dearest.

From the OP's MIL's perspective, her son's wife's daughter is not her grandchild. She is family, but that doesn't make her exactly the same as other family members.

As you said regarding your step-son, you are his step-mum not his mum. You're both family but occupy different spaces. I imagine he sometimes wants a photo with just you, and sometimes just his mother. Would you ever insist he include you in the latter because a step-mum is just the same a bio mum? I'm guessing not.

Family is a wide concept that can encompass varying levels of closeness. There is a point where marriage stops making someone family though. For example, my BIL's parents aren't my family. I've only met them once.

Trying to pretend that every family member is completely equal is bizarre. I care a lot more about my own child than I would my mother's cousin's child. They're both family, but I want lots of photos of one and barely remember what the other looks like.

Regarding your comment about 150 years ago, yes, ideas were different then. What family means is often cultural. It was a time when divorce was pretty much unheard of, marriage was more binding, and brought with it more legal ramifications. Women became property of their husbands and children were property of their parents.

As an historical fact, I've always found such things interesting. As an argument for what people in the here and now should do, it falls flat.

Not everybody is the centre of everybody else's life.

I’m afraid I agree with your husband. You made a scene at his wedding that was unnecessary and it will have become a talking point of the wedding. I’m not surprised his relatives are pissed off about that.
You “would die” if your youngest ever felt guilty? You cried in front of your children about this photo?
I'm afraid you do sound a little dramatic and you are responsible for flagging up the issue when it doesn’t sound as if your eldest was even particularly bothered about it. She will be now and that’s on you.

Completely agree. Especially since this happened in the middle of a photo with all the grandchildren - meaning there were a bunch of other children there, watching all this. There'll now be a lot of upset and confused kids asking questions about why X's mummy is shouting etc.

If I were any of OP's in-laws I would never invite her to anything again. Not because she's not family, but because she's volatile and willing to cause a scene.

Perhaps. Or embarrassed her and singled her out and made her feel less than. If she didn't make a scene she wouldn't even remember it. Seriously if your child is upset do you make it into a big deal, or do you take them away from the problem, reassure them and change the subject? Sure, pull the adults up on it later if you feel that strongly, but to cry and shout and cause a scene at someone else's wedding quite frankly is disgusting behaviour and also shitty parenting. OP made this all about her because of her own insecurities and guilt regarding the DCs estranged father.

Poor girl