Reality Check Time There are areas of the country where roses did not tend to be planted in cemetaries. Iris, yes, peonies, yes, daffodils, yes, arborvitae in vast quantities, but not roses. In one week in Arizona, not even particularly looking for either cemetaries or roses, we saw more cemetary roses than I've ever seen in this part of the country. The closest anybody seems to be to an explanation is that roses in cemetaries are connected to a Catholic cultural heritage, which doesn't really arrive in the northeast until the late 19th, early 20th century. My mother's family cemetary plot in western Pennsylvania looks like something from an Edward Gorey drawing (as did my grandparent's house) Which brings up something else to keep in mind. The major enemy of neglected roses in the eastern part of the country isn't drought but trees. Many older cemetaries here are heavily shaded. In the really old cemetaries - the 17th century ones - it's not uncommon to have 200 year old trees growing in the middle of the headstones. So you have the conumdrum that roses can only exist around people, but people can decide to get rid of them.

Oh for Pete's sake, there is ABSOLUTELY no reason to think the fiance is some kind of psycho abuser wanting to molest OP's granddaughter. This is blame-shifting at it's finest. It's irresponsible and slanderous and it doesn't help the OP at all. If anything is leads her down a false path that will only make her problems with her daughter worse. Per OP, the fiance doesn't seem to like her or her husband much. He is not warm, doesn't make much eye contact and seems to avoid them to a certain extent. However, she also reports that he is civil and there's been no open hostility or disagreement or harsh words. He appears to dislike them, but has not withheld his daughters from the OP, which he could have done if he disliked her intensely. OP considers his daughters to be unruly brats who don't really belong to her family, altho she's willing to make a small effort to play step-grandmother if it's not too much trouble. The fiance did participate in the Disney breakfast altho it was clear he was not happy about it--so he's willing to accommodate her to a certain extent to keep family peace. To try to blame the estrangement on him, and then escalate him into an abusing child molester is ridiculous. In any interpersonal conflict there is fault on both sides, even though usually everyone wants to believe that they are completely innocent and misused. If you are estranged from a family member, you ARE partially at fault. People don't like hearing that; they think they must be an exception, but it doesn't work that way. And nothing can be resolved until they are willing to own their part of the problem. Nothing. In fact, it will continue to get worse as long as someone insists they are perfectly lovely and always correct and complete victim. The OP has a multi decade relationship with her daughter. It's long and complicated. But we know that her daughter worries about the OP making scenes, and that worry would be based upon past experience. We know the daughter has accused OP of trying to buy her and her children, and in fact OP did state she built a $100,000 for a 2 year old (altho I am sure that's not the only reason the pool was built I hope). The problem was severe enough, the daughter forbade further gifts and the OP worries about gifts and cards being returned. She has only recently sent a tub of popcorn at Thanksgiving which is not inappropriate, if it came before the request to stop sending gifts. If it came afterwards, it was pushy and way out of bounds. Per OP she's had problems with several other family members. And she was pushy and insensitive regarding the Disney trip. They invited themselves, and then when they found out they weren't wanted after buying the tickets but before getting on the plane, they did not change the date of their vacation or did not go as scheduled but stay away from the daughter's family (which would have been easy to do). She insisted on a breakfast. She did not respect what they wanted. We can also see from what the OP wrote that she has conflicting requirements, she doesn't want to be in large gatherings with the girls, unless it's at Disney. She doesn't like coping with all of them, but is willing to babysit. She calls them unruly, out of control and screeching, but says they are lovely. She doesn't want to take them out in public, unless apparently they are at an amusement park. We also see from the OP's post that she is reactionary, resists self insight, and lashes out easily when she doesn't hear what she wants to hear. You can imagine how difficult would be for her daughter to deal with. And the OP's rejection of her newborn son over not getting to see her daughter alone would be very painful and angering. The OP is unreasonably rigid. We see from what the OP wrote here she is very focused on what she wants and does not seem to be much aware of the wants of her daughter. That her daughter wants something different than what OP wants does not make what the daughter wants wrong or bad, just different. But OP doesn't see that, she only sees that it is not what she wants and finds that sufficient basis to judge her daughter's wants as being wrong. Two strong willed women whose wants conflict does not in any way mean a third person is an child molesting abuser. It's very clear that the OP is at fault here. The daughter is also at fault. She is as inflexible as her mother, and just because her mother is rigid, does not make it right for the daughter to be rigid. What harm would it be to allow some time for grandmother and granddaughter to be alone together at least on occasion? One would think the daughter would understand OP would like to recreate that time she spent with her grandmother and the time when her granddaughter lived with her. I wonder if the daughter has nice memories of spending time along with her grandmother, or did the OP not facilitate that relationship? I also wonder if the daughter is worried about her mother showing favoritism among the children. The favoritism is clear (and understandable perhaps) especially the distinction between the biological granddaughter and step granddaughters, but it's hard believe the daughter would tolerate her mother favoring her daughter over the son. The daughter also has problems communicating with her mother. She didn't want her mother to come on the vacation and yet when her parents asked, she didn't say so right out then. Perhaps she was afraid of a scene. But that's not an excuse to not be clear. l Perhaps she thought it was rhetorical, it wouldn't really happen, or thought it meant it was something they should do sometime, not necessarily this time. A sort of 'let's do lunch' proposal. But again, it was her responsibility as well as OP's to make sure they were talking about the same thing. OP said she seemed initially approving of the idea then changed her mind after the tickets were purchased. Maybe she liked the idea but her fiance didn't and she encouraged the self-inviting without considering it was also her fiance's vacation and she should have spoken to him before allowing anyone else to crash the vacation, particularly since he's made it clear, they aren't his favorite people. So perhaps she initially encouraged her parents to join the vacation w/o thinking of her fiance's feelings. And then she found herself in the awkward position of having to backtrack. (btw, that the fiance may not have wanted OP and her husband on the vacation does not mean he's a child molesting abuser) So the daughter is at fault too. But the daughter isn't the one writing here, she's not the one deprived of the relationship with these children. Children who won't be children for long. OP however is the one looking for answers, and the only responsible answer is for HER to change some of the things about her that contributes to the problem. Doing the same thing she's done for the last 5+ years is not going to suddenly work. She needs to do something else, and blaming the fiance is not that something else. Looking honestly are her part in the estrangement is. A therapist would be a worthwhile investment.

In 1977 we installed very dark wood cabinets in an old lake house we were remodeling to be a year-round residence. I loved them for a lot of years, but by 2001, when we decided to tear down and rebuild on the same lot, I simply couldn't do a dark wood kitchen again! I struggled for weeks until I saw a white kitchen I loved. I'd never considered paint: "Wood should be seen!" but we did the white kitchen and loved it. We moved in 2008 and rebuilt. I would have reproduced exactly the 2001 kitchen if I could have, but neither the cabinets nor the countertops were available. I realized I wasn't tired of white, so we did a different white, and added a charcoal island. The two-tone look may be outdated quickly, but this kitchen is for ME, not for some style guru. Follow your heart! And realize that you'll always be second-guessing . . . because there are so many truly lovely choices out there!

I recently discovered a ticket for a football match in 1992 between Arsenal and Southampton in one of my old books. I actually attended that match - and it was the last one before the old North Bank standing terrace was demolished. I must have just used the ticket as a bookmark and forgotten I'd left it there. I'm very pleased to have the ticket again as a souvenir! Some of my Booker's have got contemporary reviews of the books clipped from newspapers - which I think is a nice thing to have.