Adapted from a recent online discussion.
Carolyn: Should the live-in significant other of one of our siblings be included in a family wedding photo? The cohabiting pair dont have an opinion nor do the bride or groom, but the matriarch feels strongly that the S.O. be a part of it, and another person strongly opposes that. What do you think?
WHOM TO INCLUDE?
One shot with, one without.
Re: Family Photo: When nobody involved particularly cares, I advocate going for inclusion and defining family as people who matter in our hearts and minds rather than people who share a blood relationship and/or signed a piece of paper.
I agree. And when people do care, take different versions. Someone else suggested a bunch of different configurations, and thats even better as long as it doesnt take all day.
Carolyn: In a past column (http://wapo.st/SH2fE0), you re-enforced a writers objection to a pink, strapless bridesmaid dress by suggesting she ask for alterations or another role in her brothers wedding.
Im not inclined to support a gaggle of bridesmaids and dont like the matchy-matchy outfit that rarely flatters all, but its just a dress. She could throw a shawl over it as soon as the ceremony is over.
The important thing is that the woman marrying her brother is trying to include her. The writer said shes not close to the brother. By participating in his wedding and getting to know his bride, she can build a closer relationship. The bride is offering her a gift, and I was surprised you endorsed her issues with the dress over encouraging her not to look a pink strapless dress in the mouth.
The important thing is her inclusion, yes, but I dont agree that the dress is a nonnegotiable element of the most important thing. Anyone who feels uncomfortable in a bridesmaids dress not just ew, pink washes me out, but moved-to-withdraw-from-the-wedding-party uncomfortable, as this woman was should feel free to say that to the bride.
Email email@example.com. Chat online at 10 a.m. Fridays at www.washingtonpost.com