Wedding Etiquette Forum

Mortified

Post removed due to GBCK
Don't make me mobilize OffensiveKitten

image

Anniversary

«1

Re: Mortified

  • Ditto what HoorayForSoup said. Try not to be embarrassed, you did what you could (but I totally get it and would be too)! Did you mention in the phone call that you didn't realize she was dating Bob? Just curious how you approached it.  I think the whole situation will feel a lot less embarrassing once the wedding comes and you can express how glad you are that she was able to be there.
  • Ditto the previous poster.

    Now that you KNOW about Bob and her, you extended the invitation to her.  That's fine.  That's actually very nice of you, because you could have said that the guest list was set when you didn't know that she was actually "with" Bob, and now that you know what was really going on, you don't think she could be a good marriage mentor and witness to your wedding.  But again, you didn't "go there" - you took the high road and that's nice for everyone.

    Now that she's public about her long infidelity with Bob while married to someone else, she wants to get dressed up and come with Bob to your wedding so that she can help lessen the impression in your friend group that she's a two-timing whore.  That's not really cool, since she's using your high-moral event to try to shift her own perception with others.  But really SHE'LL have to deal with that, not you.
  • Kristin - WTF?  I'm used to your crazy ideas, but calling this girl a two-timing whore is a stretch, even for you.

    Pele, I'm sure the phone call was fine, but I can see where it would be awkward.  I'm sure she didn't take it with any offense though.
  • ViczaesarViczaesar Central Coast, CA member
    Ninth Anniversary 5000 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    In Response to Re:Mortified:[QUOTE]Ditto the previous poster.Now that you KNOW about Bob and her, you extended the invitation to her.nbsp; That's fine.nbsp; That's actually very nice of you, because you could have said that the guest list was set when you didn't know that she was actually "with" Bob, and now that you know what was really going on, you don't think she could be a good marriage mentor and witness to your wedding.nbsp; But again, you didn't "go there" you took the high road and that's nice for everyone.Now that she's public about her long infidelity with Bob while married to someone else, she wants to get dressed up and come with Bob to your wedding so that she can help lessen the impression in your friend group that she's a twoti
    ming whore.nbsp; That's not really cool, since she's using your highmoral event to try to shift her own perception with others.nbsp; But really SHE'LL have to deal with that, not you. Posted
    by Kristin789[/QUOTE]
    You are a seriously bizarre person with a skewed view of reality.



  • Uh, ok.  I'll apologize and retract the phrase I used in my post.  But the OP clearly said that when the divorce was finalized, it came out that this woman had been involved with Bob for a long time WHILE married to someone else:
    "and it comes out that she has been in a relationship with one of our close friends 'Bob' for quite some time."
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:f23f92ff-6c76-4e2c-ba67-c9932e2fdd94">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Uh, ok.  I'll apologize and retract the phrase I used in my post.  But the OP clearly said that when the divorce was finalized, it came out that this woman had been involved with Bob for a long time WHILE married to someone else: "and it comes out that she has been in a relationship with one of our close friends 'Bob' for quite some time."
    Posted by Kristin789[/QUOTE]<div>
    </div><div>I must be naive, because I just read it as the lady went through a divorce and is now dating someone. Divorces can take a long time, so even if they are just now "coming out" with their relationship, it doesn't have to mean she was cheating on her husband, and thus, is a "two-timing whore," which, by the way, what? Calm down.

    </div>
  • zitiqueenzitiqueen member
    Knottie Warrior 2500 Comments 500 Love Its First Answer
    edited September 2012
    I'm just shocked that Kristen came back and replied after being called out on her ridiculous first response. That never happens.

    What's funny though, is this post Kristen chose to actually read in its entirety before jumping to her asinine conclusions. Usually it's a post where the OP complains about the FMIL and Kristen doesn't even bother reading past the "My FMIL is driving me crazy" in the subject line before she jumps right in with "It's the FILs responsibility to host the rehearsal dinner. Have your mother call his mother with her guest list and they can arrange any details between themselves. You and your groom need to remove yourselves from any wedding planning immediately because it isn't your responsibility."
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:86a3b588-231d-4b9b-87a2-948c935b7671">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Domino -- I read the OP as Tracy and Bob keeping their relationship secret -- the reason being <strong>Tracy was still married</strong>.   Only OP knows. 
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    That's how I read it too.
    Anniversary
  • Gustafson28Gustafson28 Winterfell member
    Fourth Anniversary 500 Comments 100 Love Its Name Dropper
    Just because they were dating while the divorce was being finalized doesn't mean she was cheating! It could have been the exH who wanted out. And these things take a while. She could have just been seeing him while things were being finalized. It's not an easy time and people tend to look for someone to help them through it..
  • You did the right thing by inviting her, try not to be too embarrassed. As Soup said you're not psychic and can't issue invitations to people you don't know about. 
    image
    Anniversary
  • I worked with a dude who began the divorce prodeedings with his wife after about 2 years of the inability to reconcile.   Then, after the papers were filed and his ex began to drag out the divorce, he started seeing his now wife.   Yes, they dated while he was technically still married but the papers were filed and it took TWO YEARS to get it settled.

    It's not fair to jump to conclusions until we know the whole  story.
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    I would not mortified in your situation.  How were you to know of a secret relationship?


    Most people do not have divorces in 12 days like TomKat.   Some divorces take a LONG time.  Especially if the word "bitter" is being used.    I personally do not have a problem with a separated couple having a relationship before the divorce as gone through.  I also don't think just because the relationship was on the down-low until after the divorce mean they were seeing each other prior to the separation.   Sometimes it might, but it's not always.






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • edited August 2013
    Post removed due to GBCK
    Don't make me mobilize OffensiveKitten

    image

    Anniversary

  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:877f26ea-49c7-4e89-b07d-8119b9750e7a">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Lynn, divorces can take a variety of time, but I think that most states they do not have to take that long (not certain re outside of the US).   Another issue is how people define "seperation" - it can include anything from legal seperation to wife visiting her mom for the weekend.  
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    <div>The point is the one party can drag out the process for a very long time if they want.  </div><div>
    </div><div>My cousin's husband was able to drag out the divorce for 5 YEARS!  This was after he after he gambled all their joint saving away causing them to almost lose their house.   Oh and the kicker, even though she was able to save the house on her own (with help from my aunt), he had the right to legally live there until the divorce was final.   Her options were to live there also, paying the mortgage and saving her credit or moving out knowing that he would not pay the mortgage.  She didn't make enough to be able to afford both a mortgage and rent. He refused to sell the place to.  Really, winner I tell you.   So for 5 years they lived under the same roof.  Lucky for them there was at lease a MIL suite.  </div><div>
    </div><div>Another cousin (same state), purposely waited until their oldest was 18 to get divorced.   I don't remember the exact law, but under that states law if there are any minor children you have to go to counseling for at least 12-18 months and some other stuff.  They decided to divorce when their youngest was 16.  After finding out the rules, they put off the divorce untl she was 18, however they did not live like a married couple during that time.</div><div>
    </div><div>I'm just no one to jump on the they cheated train just because some started seeing someone else while stil "married".  Life is not that black and white.</div>






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • NYU, the point is that the length of time from filing to finalizing a divorce isn't always state-dependent.   Sometimes one partner drags it out repeatedly.   In the instance I described, the husband has been brought back to court MULTIPLE times because his ex is a vindictive b!tch who just wants to make him miserable.

    In other situations, there's a mandatory separation of 1 yr prior to divorcing.

    However you are SO bitter that you can't understand that there is gray area.    I'll be the first person to say that if you're engaging in an extramarital affair, it's not a legitimate relationship.   If one side refuses to introduce the partner to close family and friends that says something about whether or not it can be a publicly recognized relationship.   That isn't the case here.

    So FFS stop being all black and white.   The vitriolic nature of your posts that ever deal with something of this nature make it impossible to take you seriously.
  • Unfortunately it sounds like a lot of the awkwardness could have been avoided had you said "of course the GF we didn't know about is invited" several weeks ago when 'Bob' first brought it up.  It sounds like he probably started mentioning it before/around the time RSVPs were due, so you had the opportunity to make it right without forcing the dinner your uncle ordered on her.

    To brides who aren't to this point yet - this is why you leave contingency in your budget for people to get into new relationships.  You shouldn't have to exclude a SO because your "wedding is full"
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:c41e7fd7-0ded-44d1-b35c-8a85c3a18c5b">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Back to OP - as to "must invites" Peggy Post -- page 89 says spouses, fiances and live in partners. Emily Post, page 573 says same thing Jodi Smith, The Etiquette Book, page 133, says spouse and live -in As to the board's insistence that any BF or GF must be included, that is a rule of some people here. Maybe their thinking is that their relationship was just as good as any live-in, so a BF or GF should be invited. That is not what Peggy Post, Emily Post (I realize not her, but whomever is editing that book now) or Smith are saying.  No need to feel embarrased for not inviting anyone other than spouse, fiance or livein partner.
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    <div>I think all of us said she should not feel mortified since she did not know.</div><div>
    </div><div>And I don't care what the above say about the subject.  I think it's a HUGE slap to people who decide not to live together but are not ready get engaged.    And this is someone who started living with my husband after a few days so we would have gotten an automatic invite.</div>






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • Kate, the way I read it is that OP issued the invitation as soon as she knew Bob and Tracy were an item.  Before, when Bob was hinting, Tracy was just a friend.

    And divorces can take a hell of a long time.  My best friend started dating someone before her divorce was final because, like Lynda's cousin, it took 5 damn years to be finalized.  Partly because they had no money, partly because her ex was being difficult.  In fact, her ex was engaged before they were legally divorced!

    Some states also require a full year of legal separation before divorce proceedings can even begin.  A friend of mine went through that.  They separated unofficially while they tried to work things out, then when they realized it wasn't going to work they filed for legal separation, then had to wait a year before they could start the divorce proceedings.

    Is it possible that Tracy and Bob were having an affair and that's why Tracy's marriage ended?  Sure, but I think it's more likely that Tracy's marriage ended, Bob was a friend who was helping her through the tough times, then they started dating but wanted to keep it quiet for fear of judgement because her divorce wasn't yet final.  Unfortunately, I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't kind of situation, which sucks.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:751a1723-ad7e-4254-91d6-35c5f3492155">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Mortified : I can understand how you're feeling but honestly I think you need to <strong>remind yourself that you can only extend invites to SO's who aren't secrets</strong>. If someone is deliberately withholding information they can't fault you for not taking it into account.  You aren't that close to this woman, so it makes sense that she wouldn't be invited given the size of your wedding. <strong>Once you knew she was the SO of an invited guest, you extended an invite to her. </strong>I think you did everything right here. 
    Posted by HoorayForSoup[/QUOTE]

    I completely agree; you did the right thing.
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:13170b37-53d0-4193-ab73-4ca968b9f4e2">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Lyn, you can invite whomever you want to your wedding, but I am responding to those who say "etiquette"  demands that every GF or BF be extended an invite.  I disagree -- and point to several authorities who say must invites are spouses, fiances and live-in, not every GF or BF.
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    <div>Don't worry, I did. I even allowed people to bring random flavor-of-the-day if they wanted.    I didn't use Post or Crane's as a way to exclude family or friends dates.</div><div>
    </div><div>
    </div><div> also know that I seem to be a better hostess than a lot of people in general.</div>






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • In Response to Re:Mortified:[QUOTE]Lyn, you can invite whomever you want to your wedding, but I am responding to those who say quot;etiquettequot;nbsp; demands that every GF or BF be extended an invite.nbsp; I disagree and point to several authorities who say must invites are spouses, fiances and livein, not every GF or BF. Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    Have fun standing on that soapbox when you irritate a friend by saying that her SO just wasn't significant enough.
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:51293a9d-cd48-466f-b56c-a41d14c477d8">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Mortified : This 100%. NYU, on a compassionate level I hope you seek therapy to deal with your issues.  On every other level I wish you would just shut the hell up. Your responses are predictable, polemic and steeped in your own issues instead of reality. If you never posted again my world would be a slightly less infuriating place. 
    Posted by HoorayForSoup[/QUOTE]

    All of this. Seriously. NYU, you need to seek SERIOUS professional help for all of your issues. And, in the meantime, I suggest steering clear of these boards since they clearly stir up too many bad memories of Daddy Pocketbook and his now-wife (though, we all know you've forgiven Cheater Daddy because of his wallet - just not his wife who he cheated with on your mother).


    OP - don't feel mortified. You did all that you could to rectify the situation. In the end, it all worked out :)
  • In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:c41e7fd7-0ded-44d1-b35c-8a85c3a18c5b">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Back to OP - as to "must invites" Peggy Post -- page 89 says spouses, fiances and live in partners. Emily Post, page 573 says same thing Jodi Smith, The Etiquette Book, page 133, says spouse and live -in As to the board's insistence that any BF or GF must be included, that is a rule of some people here. Maybe their thinking is that their relationship was just as good as any live-in, so a BF or GF should be invited. That is not what Peggy Post, Emily Post (I realize not her, but whomever is editing that book now) or Smith are saying.  No need to feel embarrased for not inviting anyone other than spouse, fiance or livein partner.
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    Just to play devil's advocate, by following these rules, someone who has been dating someone for 10 years but chose not to live together until they get married, but aren't engaged yet, would not be able to bring that person to your wedding, but someone who just started dating someone a few days ago and randomly asked the person to move in with them, and they agreed, could then bring this person to your wedding.

    I think this is why most people think it safer and more in keeping with following the spirit rather than the letter of etiquette rules and include anyone who is in a relationship, instead of trying to judge what counts as a "serious" relationship.
    Wedding Countdown Ticker
  • lyndausvilyndausvi Western Slope, Colorado mod
    Moderator Knottie Warrior 10000 Comments 500 Love Its
    In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/wedding-boards_etiquette_mortified-2?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Wedding%20BoardsForum:9Discussion:93dea6ce-e88d-4a90-9194-8338368c09c2Post:f660a2f7-5df8-4be3-a9ea-c855a61c5784">Re: Mortified</a>:
    [QUOTE]Alexa, no one is saying that a long-term partner can not be invited, but once you say every GF/BF MUST be invited, you open yourself up to the flavor of the week.  Following established etiquette is not judgemental, its relying on objective standards.  I have seen some people include "long-term" relationships, and I can see going with that, and the bride/groom/parents agreeing ahead of time what is long-term (say one year), but I don't see a rule that every BF/GF must be invited.  This can also end up with these absurdities, of married people recently seperated wanting to bring other people.
    Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    <div>The problem with that line of thinking is people become serious at different times.  I was engaged with a few months.  My brother 6 months, other brother 18 months, sister 10 months, parents 3 months.    So if you are engaged at 6 months, your are pretty serious at 4 months.  It kind of sucks to but a time-limit on what is 'long-term' and 'serious' when it's so different for each couple.  Just give everyone with a gf/bf and there is no question.</div><div>
    </div><div>As far as Flavor-of-month.  IME, you know who those people, we all know who those people are.  In most social groups they are not the majority of your guests.   I don't have a problem calling out a friend who is close enough to be invited out on their flavor-of-the-month.   (then again I just gave them a date anyway, but you certainly do not have to).</div>






    What differentiates an average host and a great host is anticipating unexpressed needs and wants of their guests.  Just because the want/need is not expressed, doesn't mean it wouldn't be appreciated. 
  • That's the thing. To you this is an absurdity. The rest of us are sticking with basic courtesy. However if you want to stick to your books then go ahead.
  • In Response to Re:Mortified:[QUOTE]Alexa, no one is saying that a longterm partner can not be invited, but once you saynbsp;every GF/BF MUST be invited, you open yourself up to the flavor of the week.nbsp; Following established etiquette is not judgemental, its relying on objective standards.nbsp; I have seen some people include quot;longtermquot; relationships, and I can see going with that, and the bride/groom/parents agreeing ahead of time what is longterm say one year, but I don't see a rule that every BF/GF must be invited.nbsp; This can also end up with these absurdities, of married people recently seperatednbsp;wanting to bring other people. Posted by
    NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    DH bought me a ring 7 months into our relationship. 5 months in, we were talking wedding and life together forever. But by your standards, we wouldn't have qualified as "serious" because we didn't fit your arbitrary timeline. So someone who moved in after a month of dating someone would get an invite, but not me or my DH even though we were already shopping for houses and getting finances in order. THAT is what is wrong with arbitrarily saying "you're serious and you're not".
  • In Response to Re:Mortified:[QUOTE] Kelly, no one is suggesting that your relationship was not serious, just that it didnt fall within an etiquette rule for a "must" invite at that time.nbsp;nbsp; Posted by NYUgirl100[/QUOTE]

    Except, by saying that you only need to invite "serious" relationships by qualifying those as livein, engaged, married, and maybe long term/more than a year, you ARE saying that you deem my relationship at 7 months with now DH not serious enough to warrant his name on an invite. That, my dear, is what you fail to understand.
  • You stand on these references as if Peggy is participating in this conversation and she's able to say whether or not you're right.

    You're so black and white on this.    If you smugly stood referencing these etiquette experts as a reason that you decided that a relationship was not valid enough to be deemed significant, do you think Peggy would give you a pat on the back??

  • Could we all please agree to just stop talking to NYU?  Derailing into her psychopathology around her father and his new wife in EVERY.  SINGLE.  THREAD.  is seriously boring the sch!t out of me this week.
    image my to-read shelf:
    Steph's book recommendations, liked quotes, book clubs, book trivia, book lists (to-read shelf)
  • In Response to Re:Mortified:[QUOTE]Could we all please agree to just stop talking to NYU? nbsp;Derailing into her psychopathology around her father and his new wife in EVERY. nbsp;SINGLE. nbsp;THREAD. nbsp;is seriously boring the sch!t out of me this week. Posted by StephBeanWed61502[/
    QUOTE]

    Sorry StephBean. It was an all around craptacular day for me... TK and NYU's BSCness was a good distraction from the rest of the day.
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards