Are we being mean ?

missbiggles1

Pollycat wrote: »

Exactly that!
You clearly have a close relationship with your first cousins.
Not everybody does.
It's not bizarre at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

It's not sad at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

Not only a different relationship but a different definition of "family".

When I was brought up, "family" was my parents and me. Obviously, it would have included siblings if I'd had any and, presumably, grandparents, only one of whom was alive when I was born and died when I was young.

Everybody else was just relatives, of various degrees of closeness but not actually our family. I appreciate that this may well be different for others but it's a perfectly valid concept.

It's also a question of numbers and geography - if your parents each have one sibling who each has two children then, by my reckoning you have four aunts/uncles, possibly four by marriage and a total of eight cousins. In my case (and this is only a rough tally) I had a total of about two dozen aunts/uncles and around forty first cousins. Given that these were spread throughout the southeast (and one lot in Scotland) I cannot see how anybody could have much in the way of feelings for such a widespread gang.

duchy

I like the explanation of "family" and "relatives" and I'd go as far as to say some of my "relatives" I'm closer to than some of my "family" ( My parents were one of six and one of seven so there's a lot of "blood" in total)

I think if you are close to someone who has wedding plans you consider as "out there" you roll your eyes and go with the flow as it is their day and you want them to be happy -even if it isn't your own idea of a good wedding -if they are "just relatives" not so much.

The OP appears to have talked to several family members about her unhappiness at the arrangements and asked them their opinions- and at least one of them has offered a solution (Maybe to keep the peace?) but the OP didn't like their solution. TBH I'm not sure that there *is* a solution that would keep her happy-She doesn't want to compromise . It seems to be her way or no way (one night and only pay for the adults although her "children" appear to be older teenagers not small children )

If she was one of my relatives I'd be a bit annoyed at her running to all the family complaining but I do wonder if she simply doesn't have a close relationship or even like the BIL very much and their relationship is "relative" rather than family.

I think in her shoes I'd probably roll my eyes at the pretentiousness of a castle - but decide it's one weekend out of a lifetime and as I can afford it (as she has says she can) and enjoy the extra time with family - and make the best of it. I might have a giggle with my nearest and dearest about the more pretentious elements but as I'd be wishing the couple well on their marriage I wouldn't want to upset them by telling the whole family that I thought their plans were daft .

We all have ideas for a wedding that others don't agree with- some people think registry offices aren't "proper" others think weddings are a lot of fluff and nothing to do with marriage, Most people wouldn't want to upset the bride and groom with announcing to all and sundry you disapprove of their chosen plans for their day. These sort of things can cause huge rifts in families and for the sake of one weekend it usually isn't worth it. In the OP's shoes I'd roll my eyes -insist the kids had beds as they are paying for them (or sleeping bags and not pay) - go - and enjoy the spectacle - and enjoy the castle experience as a one off and make the most of catching up with relatives I don't see very often.

If money was an issue it would be different but the OP is adamant it isn't about cost so it boils down to other people's feelings. The bride and groom may be very upset with her for trying to drag the rest of the family into her disagreement with them to put pressure on them to give in to her demands. They may be saying nothing for now but that resentment may damage the relationship between these two families for years to come. It's just not worth it.

The OP should be sorting this issue out directly with her BIL and not try to drag everyone else into her issue with him.

Torry_Quine

Pollycat wrote: »

Exactly that!
You clearly have a close relationship with your first cousins.
Not everybody does.
It's not bizarre at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

It's not sad at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

It's sad to me in that it suggests that your parents weren't close to their siblings. It's one thing to not know them well but to not even know their names.

duchy

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It's sad to me in that it suggests that your parents weren't close to their siblings. It's one thing to not know them well but to not even know their names.

Why ?
Not all siblings are close
Not all siblings grew up together
Most murderers have siblings
Not all siblings live on the same continent
Not all siblings are nice people to know


If I had a sibling who was a convicted murderer or was violent or who had decided they wanted nothing to do with family then I wouldn't see any need to tell my children about them in any detail.

What makes me sad is how judgemental your post is.

I have first cousins in Australia. Their Dad emigrated when I was four. I have memories of him -one of his daughters has visited but the other two haven't. I keep up with them and their children on FB but it isn't sad -it's just the way of the world when people move around the world. Some families are quite insular and live close -others like mine have a tradition of moving around the world . My grandfather emigrated to London in 1900, my Mum emigrated to London in the fifties - my grandfather's brother emigrated twice, once from the Pogroms to England - and then to America - another brother twice and ended up in Australia (so I have cousins on both sides in Australia). Heck I'm still trying to sort out my family history as to where they all scattered to . I've visited family abroad (one had a fabulous house overlooking Sydney harbour another lives in beautiful Vermont). I also have second cousins in Israel - I love the fact my family are so adventurous and so cosmopolitan -yet we are linked by a common heritage. I find it extraordinary that my partner's familes (both birth and adoptive) have lived in each others pockets for generations in London. Do I say it makes me sad that they've missed out on so much my relatives have experienced ? No - everyone is different.

Errata

Pollycat wrote: »

Exactly that!
You clearly have a close relationship with your first cousins.
Not everybody does.
It's not bizarre at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

It's not sad at all, just a different family relationship compared to yours.

I have a relative who married a middle aged bloke who has 64 first cousins! They all have partners, kids - and remembering who they all are, their names and inviting them to the wedding would have involved a booking at the Albert Hall to comfortably fit them in alongside other relatives and friends from both sides.

Torry_Quine

duchy wrote: »

Why ?
Not all siblings are close
Not all siblings grew up together
Most murderers have siblings
Not all siblings live on the same continent
Not all siblings are nice people to know


If I had a sibling who was a convicted murderer or was violent or who had decided they wanted nothing to do with family then I wouldn't see any need to tell my children about them in any detail.

What makes me sad is how judgemental your post is.

I totally agree that if a sibling is violent etc then it would be wrong to encourage a relationship but that in itself is sad that due to circumstances you have to cut them off.

I honestly can't see how what I said was judgemental:o but I apolgise if anyone took it that way.

Pollycat

Torry_Quine wrote: »

It's sad to me in that it suggests that your parents weren't close to their siblings. It's one thing to not know them well but to not even know their names.

My parents were close to their siblings.

I grew up with spending summer Sunday afternoons with my cousins on my Mum's side.

We've just not kept in touch as adults.
It may be sad to you but it doesn't bother me at all.

I didn't say that I didn't know their names.
I said this:

Pollycat wrote: »

I know my 5 first cousins. That is, I know their names. I could probably remember the names of their children if I tried really hard.

I have no idea where they live, have never met who they are married to, I wouldn't know any of them if I passed them in the street.

I didn't go to any of their weddings. I believe I was invited to one but we declined as we were on holiday.

So - not so odd really.

It just depends on the dynamics of your family.
I seem to be more like missbiggles1 than like you.

Torry_Quine

Pollycat wrote: »

My parents were close to their siblings.

I grew up with spending summer Sunday afternoons with my cousins on my Mum's side.

We've just not kept in touch as adults.
It may be sad to you but it doesn't bother me at all.

I didn't say that I didn't know their names.
I said this:

I can't remember who but someone did say it was bizarre not to know your cousins names which is what the answer was to, you then answered me so I replied, hope that makes sense.

Pollycat

It does make sense but I corrected you as it was my post you quoted - and I didn't say I didn't know my cousins' names.

fierystormcloud was the poster who said it was bizarre not to know your cousins' names.
I just don't think it is bizarre.
It all depends on the family dynamics.

Goldiegirl

duchy wrote: »

If money was an issue it would be different but the OP is adamant it isn't about cost so it boils down to other people's feelings.

It is about cost to a certain point, as the OP said she can't 'justify' the expenditure, which seems to be the reason she's given for not staying overnight in the hotel.


Personally, I think she'd have been better off leaving money out of it completely, and just told the BIL that they won't stay, as they'll feel far more comfortable in their own beds, and have left it like that