10 year old snubbed at wedding

[ProvoPrincess]

DH has raised my eldest since she was 3. She does not see her biological family,

DH’s cousin got married at the weekend. It was a perfect day up until the early evening.

All the kids were playing together outside when all of a sudden my ten year old appeared next to me inside. I asked where her sister was and she replied that she had been taken off by one of DH’s cousins and told her to come in.

I went to investigate, not that I thought she was in danger or anything but I just wanted to know.

Mother-in-Law and her sisters were having official photographs with their proper grandchildren.

Something came over me and I called out to my youngest daughter to come to me. As I was approaching group a cousin’s partner said to wait a bit as they wanted a group photo of all the sisters with grandchildren. I just grabbed my daughter.

I tried to find my husband but he was in another outside space and it turned out he had been in a photo immediately before I had come out. I went back to the room and just cried in front of both kids. I pretended I was ill.

DH couldn’t understand why they didn’t include my eldest but MiL’s eldest sister just said I had ruined something special.

I am angry, upset and also full of shame and embarrassment.

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.

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.

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

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.

Were you there?

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

@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.

It's a reasonable view. Although I respect anyone who thinks through what they actually do to keep everyone comfortable whatever's "normally done".

When I got married, having been to some uncomfortable (for various reasons) weddings we did some things differently and one of them was a roving photographer to avoid all the photo awkwardness and hanging about hungry.

What comes through in the OP's post is the hosts weren't very interested in her feelings or her daughters' (plural) and no the event wasn't about her, but it's now really awkward on all fronts and blended situations do require tact.

In total agreement with this

God no I don't think everyone carries on like this.

Inlaws had Ukrainian refugees living with them for several years amd while there have been no weddings during that time, they absolutely would have been invited if there were. They might not be part of the family, but they were part of the household.

A step-daughter in Elizabethan times would not have a living father to provide for her - re-marriage was to widows/widowers, divorcees were vanishingly uncommon. That aside, yes you are right though among the aristocracy illegitimate children were frequently included and used in the marriage stakes as well (a man who did not take care of his bastards was badly thought of). Most illegitimate children would end in a foundling home of some sort, of course.

How hard is it to just include everyone ffs. Spiteful cunts

For my wedding, the photographer advised that we have official photos both with and without steps, partners etc as you never know what will happen to relationships in the future. If you and your husband split, you could walk out of their lives completely with your child and they might never see her again. I understand them wanting photos without her, but I would also have done photos with her too as well.

Thats very sad, and I feel for them but surely people realise this can happen with biological family too? There was a research paper (i'll link yo it if I can find it) I read a while back that said that in the event of parental seperation over 40% of Grandparents lose contact with biological grandchildren. In some cases they may be able to take the parents to court to request access but this is a lengthy and expensive process with no guarantee of success. So by that logic no one should risk getting attached to their GC, blood or not.

You're right, I did miss that bit. My bad.

In that case, OP's DH was completely in the wrong as well for going along with it and OP has every right to be hurt and disappointed that he didn't.

Everything I said still stands. My post was (quite obviously, I think) against people choosing not to treat children equally within families, not "against women".

But I’m cases like that, they are still family.

Except apparently the feelings of the children, including her own ironically enough, that were upset when OP decided to create a scene in front of them.

The world, and entire family, and a wedding does not revolve around the feelings of one particular child.

Hard disagree. I think this viewpoint is extremely damaging, including to the child in question let alone her sister or any child-aged step-cousins.

I can (to an extent) understand excluding non related adults. No one wants a random ex boyfriend or girlfriend in a wedding photo at the end of the day, but a child… it’s a child?? Have one with and one without if you must, but excluding children is flat out mean. There’s kids in my wedding photos who I probably couldn’t pick out of a line up now. Doesn’t matter though because they look happy and cute in their little outfits.

I disagree.