I think that things went well. In the beginning, when thanking the people (hardly an empty chair) for coming to share their joys and sorrows regarding their friend, that their home and family and their friends were important to Jean and her husband who died seven years ago, and that I wanted the people to imagine that they were sitting at their friend's kitchen table, or in their living room, or on the back deck, so to feel free to make a comment, ask a question or speak as they felt moved to do. I asked their daughter, who spent time in Hong Kong and Shanghai and has spent several years with an interest in Buddhist concepts, whether she would like to include some Buddhist readings ... and she said not, but that she appreciated the offer. When I asked whether she'd like to speak, as the males did, (equal time) she said that she feared that she'd break down and cry, and even before the gathering, she demurred, but when I offered, during the gathering, she came and spoke of her mother ... and for part of her talk, I stood with my arm around her. One of the boys made a montage of slides of various family members, involved in various activities (a substantial portion of it, eating) and played his trumpet, and another played a piece on the keyboard, along with the speaking. I said that there's been scarcely any civilization where they had no belief in a spiritual power that takes an interest in our world, and that now, with many saying that science has made all of these superstitions unnecessary, so many have placed religion on a back shelf in the closet of the spare bedroom ... but even the modern folks say that they are spiritual (but not religious) - whatever that means. But I felt that we should make it a part of ordinary living - like salt that adds flavour to soup, or leaven which makes bread more tasty and interesting. That when God made the world, s/he took a great risk, in giving us free will, which I deeply appreciate: not wanting to be like an ant, part of a line, following a predetermined path. While God doesn't hit us over the head with a 2 X 4, forcing us to follow, s/he seduces us - tells us that s/he loves us deeply, and wants us to love, in return ... ... and to go out and build a world the way that s/he would like it to be. What a wonderful challenge, privilege and responsibility that God wants us to be involved in - to be co-creators with Him/Her of the beautiful world that it can become, tomorrow. Built on concern for and help to others, understanding, compassion and love. Starting tomorrow, and the day after - but really beginning today: right now. We have a sick old world, and we need to work hard not to build walls, keeping people either in, or out: but separating them, whichever. How much more creative to build bridges of understanding. The daughter said ... that her mom would have been so pleased. ole joyful

Here are a few that I gathered following my mother's passing: Afterglow Author Unknown I'd like the memory of me to be a happy one. I'd like to leave an afterglow of smiles when life is done. I'd like to leave an echo, whispering down the way, of happy times, and laughing times, of bright and sunny days. I'd like the tears of those who grieve to dry before the sun, with happy memories that I leave, when life is done. ----------------------------------- Fill not your hearts with pain and sorrow but remember me in every tomorrow Remember the joy, the laughter, and the smiles I've only gone to rest for a little while Although my leaving causes pain and grief my going has eased my hurt and given me relief So dry your eyes and remember me not as I am now, but as I used to be Because, I will remember you all and look on with a smile Understand, in your hearts I've only gone to rest a little while As long as I have the love of each of you I can live my life in the hearts of all of you ------------------------------ Miss me but let me go When I come to the end of the road And the sun has set for me I want no rites in a gloom-filled room. Why cry for a soul set free? Miss me a little--but not too long And not with your head bowed low. Remember the love that we once shared, Miss me--but let me go. For this is a journey that we all must take And each must go alone. It's all a part of the Master's plan, A step on the road to home. When you are lonely and sick of heart Go to the friends we know And bury your sorrows in doing good deeds. Miss Me--But Let me Go! ---------------------------- Those we love don't go away, They walk beside us everyday, Unseen, unheard, but always near, Still loved, still missed, so very dear.

Point taken, wrychoice, this one does hit home and I'm having a bad day. I think what gets my dander up about hopper2008's posts is what other people have cited (the apparent arrogance and the striking need to prove herself superior, esp. to the former wife & kids), but perhaps I'm taking it more personally because of my situation. The only other thing I really reacted to that other people hadn't already mentioned as irritating is the projection factor. That is, hopper2008 making it out like SD is the one being childish, unreasonable, immature, insecure and manipulative about this situation. Which may very well be the case, but if hopper2008 isn't in some way, at some level, tugging the other end of the rope, then it's a non-issue. If it's a non-issue, then Hopper2008 would simply make sure her husband knows it's okay for him to go to his daughter's wedding without her (and doesn't stand on any principle or misplaced idealism about unity, loyalty or whatever and create a very difficult situation for DH and SD on her wedding day b/c she can't face the reality that she and SD simply don't get along and pushes it at the wrong time & circumstance.) I guess I reacted especially much to the projection aspect because my Dad's wife plays that game of telling herself & other people similar things (i.e. "whatever HE wants to do"; "HE's choosing to do such-and-such"). It's crap, don't buy it if you ever hear this sort of thing. No parent except the lowest form would EVER so quickly and unequivocably "choose", "freely", to leave their kid in the lurch, even if said kid was being a brat. These husband/fathers DO NOT WANT TO TURN THEIR BACKS ON THEIR CHILDREN and they DO NOT do so easily. I mean, unless they are scum, in which case I'd have to ask why anyone would want to be with scum like that. These men (or women, when it's women in these situations) may seem like they are "choosing", but they are BACKED AGAINST THE FRIGGIN' WALL and make these apparent "free choices" under tremendous duress of one sort or the other. For example, I know this because my Dad got me a plane ticket to visit him behind my SM's back (via money order) and always calls me when she isn't around; he called NINE TIMES on and around X-mas ---when she was out--- because he felt so guilty about telling me I couldn't come. Because it wasn't what HE wanted. I know for a fact that SM was telling people "he decided" to not have me there, b/c he was so "disappointed" in me, or whatever the H3LL.... Meanwhile, these "independent decisions" of his always seem to benefit SM, for example HER sister and brother-in-law were there at Christmas in my place, and she got some home improvements done (FOR her not BY her, to be sure). My SM isn't fooling anybody! (Well, I can't say that.... she's not fooling ME and several others ---including my Dad--- but maybe she's fooling somebody somewhere.) In this kind of scenario, if a parent seems to be making a choice to turn their back on their child ---especially on a really important or significant occasion like a wedding that they would otherwise never want to miss--- and their spouse is acting all "my dog ain't in that fight", or more obviously, even GLOATING about the parent's "choice": look closer, ask some more questions. Barring possible reasons such as the most scummy good-for-nothing parent or child on the planet, in most average situations with average people with average issues and flaws, there is more going on than meets the eye. It's more than one person tugging the rope. One way or another, the spouse is also manipulating the situation, or at the very least, is getting a big payoff (emotional, financial, circumstantial, etc.) from just "sitting back" and 'watching" the fight. Saying things in plain English (i.e. "don't go to your daughter's wedding without me or I will be very upset and might divorce you") is only one possible method of getting one's point across. Other methods include: -The Silent Treatment -Sexual Freeze-Out -Generally Being a Stone-Cold B***h Until He Changes the Situation to Your Way -Acting all Hurt and Crying ("Why Doesn't SD Love Me?!?!") to Play the Victim -"Forgetting" to Do Something You Promised (such as get groceries to have food in the house) So He Gets the Hint You're Not Pleased About X situation -"Forgetting" to Give Him His Prescription Medications That You've Made him Dependent On You For So He Gets the Hint... (a favorite tactic of my SM's; actually all of these are) ...and there's probably myriad other sick, twisted ways of controlling a situation that aren't even occuring to me because I'm just not that perverse. (Would have to get in that Stephen King "Misery" headspace to comprehend it more thoroughly.) Admittedly I have some bitterness about my personal stepfamily dynamics (on one side of the family anyways), but apart from any offense it gives anyone, I hope that at least hopper2008 and perhaps anyone else who feels they relate to her will perceive in my words the effect that her apparent attitude may inspire in an SD in that kind of situation. And to just be careful, as kkny said, about the hubris factor. It's humbling to hear it, but hopefully it puts things in perspective b/c it's never a good idea to go around thinking of oneself as being perpetually in a catbird seat. Not with the way our society and relations between men and women tend to go. Plus I think it's good 'tactical' advice, to be kind of Sun Tzu about it: a strategic choice to 'lose the battle' (over being at the wedding) in order to 'win the war', or at least *appear* the bigger person and pre-empt any feeling DH might develop about being on a leash and starting to resent it. (Men tend to wriggle out of a leash millimeter by millimeter... you don't see it coming, and then poof! They're gone! Or even worse, they stay...) This particular advice isn't meant to be about pleasing the man, or the SD, but covering your own behind and not thinking you're invincible or always going to win.... or even always going to be around! So picture the points I made in my last post but with a bit less 'edge'... and hopefully it's illuminating.

I am sure Talley Sue is correct about what Crane's and other authorities say. And I get the point about simplicity, hosts only listed on the invitation, and the invitation not being about credits. However, I can tell you that we get dozens of wedding invitations every year, and they all give the groom's parents' names, too. The only exceptions are the ones from much older couples who are issuing the invitations themselves, or from couples who style the invitation "Together with their parents/families, Petunia Smith and Cuthbert Jones request the pleasure of your company as they are married ...." The latter formulation seems to be when there is some sort of complicated family circumstance regarding lots of stepparents or something. Even the ones that have, in every other respect, the most formal wording, still include the grooms' parents' names: "Mr. and Mrs. Zebulon Smith request the honour of your presence at the marriage of their daughter, Petunia Ann, to Cuthbert Arthur Jones, son of Mr. and Mrs. Norbert Jones ...." I imagine that in many cases, both sets of parents are hosting, or at least contributing money. But even where (as the formal wording indicates) only the brides' parents are, they always name the groom's parents, too. My point is that even though this is not correct per the etiquette rule, it is so firmly established a convention in my community that to leave off the grooms' parents names would be considered a major insult on the part of the bride's parents and would be taken as a real humiliation by the groom's parents. I'm not arguing the etiquette rule; I'm just saying that it doesn't end the analysis.