Hi Amy, and welcome.

To answer: 1) No. I think marriage makes this man the husband of the children's grandmother. I think affection, time, attention and patience could make him grandpa. That is not for any adult to decide though - the call as to when, if ever, he becomes grandpa is totally up to the children in question.
2) Typical - yes, to a degree. Sue likely sees all the other adults in a grandparental role called as such and feels that it would be awkward to have her new husband just referred to as 'Bob' when everyone else has a title of honor (assuming Jane's step mom has a title as well.) She likely wants her new family to be part of the big family just like her ex as his wife - so things are 'equal'. She could also just be one of those people who refers to all good friends as Aunt Mary and Uncle Tom when they truly have no relation.
Reasonable - not so much. As I said above, if the kids are old enough to know better they deserve the chance to get to know this person before he becomes Grandpa, as well as the rest of his family. I think it diminishes the relationships they have with their other family members if *just anyone* gets to be a grandparent, aunt or cousin. If they aren't old enough, I think the parents should be consulted before a title is handed out.

A friend at work remarried last summer. They are both in their 60s and both are widowers (for a long time prior to meeiting each other and both lost their spouses to cancer). They also have children and grandchildren. Yes, she is a grandmother to his grandchildren (there are many of them, like 8 or so) and he is grandpa to her one grandkid. I don't know if they told each other than they want things this way, but it defnitelly works for them.

Since they both are widowers there is no other grandpa and grandma in the picture. So their grandkids are not objecting.

I think that maybe in divorced situation it is not as easy.

I think that ideally, he will become Grandpa. She may just be trying a little too hard too early on in the relationship to make sure both that he accepts her family and her family accepts him. Whether it's appropriate to ask the grandchildren to call him grandpa, imo, depends on their ages... if they're young enough that they don't quite yet understand the signficance of the title, it might be appropriate... if they grow up always thinking of him as grandpa, and with him always thinking of them as his grandchildren, that would probably be a good thing. But if the GKs are old enough that they know who their grandparents are and that Bob isn't one of them, then they should be allowed (again, imo) to decide when and if they want to call him grampa based on how their relationships with him develop.

As far as the "aunt" and "cousins", my opinion is why on earth would anyone fight over this? It seems a bit silly for Sue to insist on it, but at the same time, why would Jane refuse, unless she is trying to prove a point that she does not accept Bob as family? Which is a metaphorical slap in her mother's face; I do not accept your husband. They *are* aunt (or great-aunt) and cousins - by marriage - and most people use those terms as much or more as descriptors of how they're related than "titles" of affection anyway.

If I were Jane, I would agree to view Bob's extended family as my own, aunts, cousins and all, but point out to Sue that it's probably a little unfair to expect children to instantly accept a new grandpa without having a chance to develop a relationship with him first.

1) Legally - yes; emotionally - no.

2) It depends on the relationship Jane wants GP to have with the kids. If Jane likes the guy, then there's no reason he can't become a grandfather-figure. If Jane doesn't like him, it's perfectly acceptable to keep some distance.

If the kids don't call him "Grandpa", then what should they call him? Bob? Bob sounds very disrespectful from a young child to a person old enough to be his or her grandparent. "Grandpa Bob" or "GrandBob" or "BoBo" or something similar would work, but IMO, there should be some sort of title or nickname.

The emotional closeness of the relationship will depend on the people involved. I was not at all close to one of my grandmothers (Mom's mother) and was especially close to one of my grandfathers (Dad's stepfather). In fact, it took me years to realize that 'Doc' was not actually related at all, and by then, it certainly didn't matter.

If Sue wants them to be close, she should encourage it by spending lots of time with the GKids and doing lots of fun activities. And IMO, Jane shouldn't resent it or try to undermine it out of loyalty to her own father. IMO, the more "grandparents" (real, step, honorary, whatever...), the better! More to love --

"Legally - yes; emotionally - no" -- actually, in the eyes of the law there is no relationship between the second husband and his wife's children and grandchildren. Unless he adopts them, they are simply his wife's descendants and no relation to him.

"I think it diminishes the relationships they have with their other family members if *just anyone* gets to be a grandparent, aunt or cousin." That's Sue's position. She is uncomfortable telling her children to call relative strangers "aunt." Sue's example is that when her sister got married, her sister's new in-laws were not now Sue's children's aunts and uncles. So why should her mother's new in-laws be?

"As far as the "aunt" and "cousins", my opinion is why on earth would anyone fight over this?" -- Jane is making an issue of it because she feels entitled to it and because she thinks its an important part of being a family. She feels very strongly that she and her husband's families were united when they married and her children and grandchildren are obligated to take on his family as their own.

Sue doesn't agree. Her view is that she was an adult when her mother remarried, with a family of her own, and that she's happy being friends with her mothers in-laws, but doesn't consider them to be her own family.

"I think it diminishes the relationships they have with their other family members if *just anyone* gets to be a grandparent, aunt or cousin." That would be exactly Sue's position. Sue and her husband feel that their fathers raised them and are the grandfathers and it's offensive for someone they hardly know to claim that title, too.

amycoral said: in the eyes of the law there is no relationship between the second husband and his wife's children and grandchildren. Unless he adopts them, they are simply his wife's descendants and no relation to him.

Actually many SMs on this forum would argue with you about it because they dislike being consdered just wives of the second husband. SMs here consider themsleves very much of a family and very much of a parent not just wives of kids' father. ...I am not saying this is right or worng but this is a very typical argument here, how much of a family is dad's wife? I guess it depends.

I can see Sue's position. If my mom would get divorced and remarry, i doubt that mine or my brothers kids would want to call her new husband: grandpa. I guess it depends for how long he has been in the family.

I think it's being nitpicky.

I agree that you shouldn't have your kids call just anyone grandma or grandpa, but he isn't just anyone... he's married to grandma and it really isn't that big a deal, unless there is a reason to not like him.

My SD began calling my dad 'grandpa' and it upset some of his 'real' grandkids. It was a jealousy thing. Personally, it's up to the child and the prospective grandparent to decide what title to use. I like Sweeby's idea of giving a nickname like Grandpa Bob.

What I don't agree with is my SD's mom has SD call her BF 'dad' and his parents 'grandma & grandpa'. She had another 'fiance' a month before she moved with this one. If things don't work out and she gets a new guy, his family will be addressed the same? She's teaching her kids to call anyone dad or grandparents. If she married one of them, it would at least be considered permanent and might be better.

It's not a big deal unless the child does not want to call him grandpa. If the child is okay with it and so is grandpa, everyone else needs to BUTT OUT.

she actually told SD to call her BF dad? This is crazy. how does your DH feel about it? this is inappropriate, she is not married to this guy plus SD already has a very involved father. is she trying to play house, perfect little family? i wonder if BF's kids call her mom. Her own DDs do not even live with her and one lives with grandma. is she mom to these other kids?

I had a neighbour long time ago who asked me why I am not teaching DD (little girl at that time) to call a guy I was dating "dad". I was not even dating a guy, he was just a friend coming over for a cup of coffee, we all lived in a small community so people all knew each other, used to come over and visit, of any gender.

DD was talking about her dad and neighbour said: oh how sweet she calls such and such "dad". I said no, she actually calls her "dad" -"dad", not a neighbour guy. she said why wouldn't you teach her? "Her dad does not live with you and sees DD only on the weekends so she might as well call your friend "dad"." BUT HE IS NOT HER DAD!!! lol what's wrong wiht people.

completely off topic. it is a mystery to me how BM moved in with a guy she knew for a month and it seems to be working for them. and he even supports her financially. how do people do it? is she that special?

I think a good compromise (and to make it less confusing) would be to come up with names such as "Nana" or "BonusGramps" (or whatever is decided) that are different enough from both "Grandma"/"Grandpa" and their full names so that it acknowledges that they are 'elders' with some 'extended' or 'blended' family ties without being uncomfortable for anybody. Even if it's a silly or unique nickname that the kids come up with. For example, I named all 4 of my *biological* grandparents when I was very young, and it stuck: "Mama Gin", "Papa Si", "Mom-Mom" and "Teet" (the last one was b/c this grandfather loved iced tea). Not knocking the old stand-bys "Grandma" and "Grandpa", but I really like the idea of personal unique nicknames for each. And it segues well into having unique names for SGP's.

One good thing about your situation is that, unless the SGP's are real Buttinsky types, the kids having "bonus" grandparents is geenrally only going to be good. I say that based on maybe an idyllic conception of GP's as being involved in the GK's lives primarily as additional support and doting... Hopefully that'll be the case here.

I also called my stepdad's mother "Bubbie" while she was alive. She was already a grandmother to several other children and was definitely a "bubbie"! :) We saw her on a regular basis, and there was more of a connection there b/c of that and also the fact that I lived full-time with my mom & stepdad. It felt comfortable and I never had a moment of awkwardness with it.

I have only ever called my Dad's wife's parents by their actual first names, for several reasons:

-They never once (at least in front of me) expressed any problem or issue with being called by their first names
-I've never actually met them in person
-I was already 13 by the time my Dad & SM got together, so it was maybe a little different than if I'd been a younger child
-They are not biological grand-parents to any children
-I think I kind of followed my Dad & SM's lead on what to call them, as I recall...

So I guess my only point is that it just depends on the relationship that develops, the age of the kids, how often they see the SGP's, and other factors... No two situations will be able to follow the exact same rules...

Hi Amycoral,

Welcome to the board.

When I read your initial post and the responses of others, my first thought was "What JNM wrote!"

Then I read your 15:03 post and thought, "Oh, she already has her mind made up on this and is simply looking for validation of her position...no reason for me to respond then."

So, consider this a non-response.

PS I hope Jane and Sue are able to have a kind and loving mother-daughter relationship regardles of how Jane's children ultimately address Sue's new husband.

I'm actually not looking for validation -- I'm looking for perspectives. "Girl who seeks validation on the Internet should invest in therapy, instead." :)

To clarify -- when I said that in the eyes of the law there's no relationship between step parent and child, I didn't mean that in a desparaging way. I've known great step parents and lousy ones, but either way, in the eyes of the law they have no authority over the children.

Thank you for sharing your perspectives with me.

I'm with Sweeby, et al, on that it would be good if there was some sort of grandparent nickname in play here, but not necessarily "Grandpa"... I personally like "Papa Bob".

Amy - Did Jane and Sue switch identities between your first and second post?

Because if it's Grandma who objects to "just anyone" getting a relative title, then she's being a total hypocrit to claim her new hubby is now "Grandpa". But if it's the Mother/daughter (wasn't that Jane?) who objects (except when it's her husband's family?), then it seems the real motivation might be something else.

That's Sue's position. She is uncomfortable telling her children to call relative strangers "aunt."

I was about 7 when my uncle-- my mom's brother-- got married. Old enough I remember it. Anyway, a "relative stranger" (actually, a total stranger, at the time) instantly became my aunt (and still is). Is there a significant difference? If so, what?

The impression I'm getting is that the daughter is the one looking for "perspective" -- and the other impression i'm getting is, like I said previously, she's making a point that "Bob" is not family. Is Bob so horrible (or does she have such issues with her mother?) that it's worth making that point? Or are her and her husband's fathers really threatened if Bob gets to be "grandpa"? (not "dad", but "grandpa")

If the mom is the one wanting advice, do your daughter and her husband treat Bob nicely? If so, why is it worth it to push the "titles'?

or are there other issues between sue and jane that ought to be addressed?

I too suspect issues between Sue and Jane, and it is similiar to ones frequent with second marriages, and that is one party doesnt want to accept partners, etc. in marriage as father, mother, aunt, uncle, cousin, sister, etc. right out of the gate. It seems to me that some compromise could be made, coming up with a special name, e.g. Papa Joe.

Oh, crap, Jane and Sue did switch positions in the second post. Sorry.

I am not either one of them. I am a friend of Sue's, and I've been watching this situation for months and I find it bizarre. Sue's position seems very aggressive to me and I was just wondering whether it was the norm.

When my Dad remarried in his sixties it was no big deal. We threw them a party and went on with our lives and they never asked for more than that. Ten years later she's one of the most important people in my life. It takes time. She never tried to be a grandma, she was just the person who loved the kids by choice. My kids worship her. (And they've always called her by first name, nothing else ever came up.)

I guess I was just really lucky.

Anyway, thank you again. It all got me to thinking and I enjoyed reading your perspectives.