|
In response to
"how about compromise? not 3 weeks in europe, or just the husband goes to the wedding? -- nm"
by
b.
|
haxy suggested the latter (not a fan of destination weddings)
Posted by
pixman (aka chris)
May 21 '10, 11:04
|
Carolyn Hax: Ugh. Another item for the why-the-destination-wedding-concept-is-loathsome pile.
I;m not sure which answer to give you, because there are two. There's the answer that works in a functional world, where you go ahead with your trip to Europe and your husband's family understands completely--it's the risk any couple accepts when going the destination-wedding route. You just can't dictate what other people do with such a huge chunk of their money and vacation time.
Then there's the answer for a dysfunctional world, where merely living as he has every right to do will cause your husband enduring friction between him and his self-absorbed and punitive sister, and their parents will side with her.
Maybe you live in a functional world--but I assume that your asking me this question means you don't, which is too bad. Living in the latter doesn't mean you all have to go to the Caribbean Me-Fest; you can (and I think, should) still choose to go ahead with your long-planned trip. It just means that you have to be prepared for there to be fallout.
One way to prepare is to have a compromise handy; for example, you send just your husband to the wedding, just for the weekend. Expensive still, and tiring, but it would show a willingness to wave the flag, and send a "Darn, I'm sorry we all couldn't come, such awkward timing" message.
|
Responses:
|
