Going through photos out of your big day is supposed to be a completely happy occasion, but it surely was anything but for this couple.
Taking to a web-based forum, a groom shared how he noticed a major… absence from his wedding photos — his son.
The person said his 12-year-old from a previous relationship was nowhere to be seen within the snaps, despite playing an enormous role on the actual day.
“She loved him like he was her own”
“At first I used to be in a state of shock… I assumed it was the idiot photographer who did this but then [my wife] told me the reality,” he wrote.
“I couldn’t really consider it was her who asked him to be edited out,” he continued, adding that she had all the time shown love towards the boy as if he were her own.
He then recounted instances where she had shown him real affection like decorating his room and paying for holidays for him.
“She even gave him pocket money beyond what I gave him and all the time bought him stuff,” the OP said.
He then claims that she “adored him” and “embraced him immediately” and if she hadn’t, then he would never have married her in the primary place. Hence his confusion now…
The wife’s justification was she wanted photos of just the completely happy couple, “but that’s bulls**t because there have been still other members of the family who weren’t cut out of the photos,” he said.
He also noted that the wife had kept the unique unedited photos, but he was still mad at her.
He flew home early from their honeymoon
“I lost my temper since it felt like she was excluding him and the argument escalated,” the person said. The wife said that he was overreacting and the situation got out of hand.
To make matters worse, this whole debacle went down on their honeymoon, of all places.
At one stage, she even threatened to call his son to point out that he didn’t care about being cut out, however the man told her to not get him involved.
So as an alternative, she called her mom for backup, and he or she ended up telling him to “go easy on her” as she “will need to have been overwhelmed on her big day.”
The altercation ultimately led to him canning the honeymoon altogether and going home early.
“She hasn’t stopped crying about it and saying I’m being awful and that I keep forgetting all the things she’s done for my son up to now…” he concluded his post.
“Why would she only cut out your son?”
Comments were a mixed bag of opinions, with one person arguing, “FFS It’s his SON. Not a cousin or friend, his son. Also, why would she cut ONLY him out of the photos? That’s what worries me.”
Another person agreed: “If she had done it to other people, I’d buy her story, but she didn’t. I don’t think she cares for the boy the best way OP thought. You don’t cut out people you like, full stop.”
One other took a more empathetic approach, saying, “It seems like perhaps he was in every photo, if that’s the case then I can see why his wife edited some.
“She said she wanted a few of just them, don’t forget wife kept the unedited originals as well, so it’s not like she had them tossed/deleted.”
Going through photos out of your big day is supposed to be a completely happy occasion, but it surely was anything but for this couple.
Taking to a web-based forum, a groom shared how he noticed a major… absence from his wedding photos — his son.
The person said his 12-year-old from a previous relationship was nowhere to be seen within the snaps, despite playing an enormous role on the actual day.
“She loved him like he was her own”
“At first I used to be in a state of shock… I assumed it was the idiot photographer who did this but then [my wife] told me the reality,” he wrote.
“I couldn’t really consider it was her who asked him to be edited out,” he continued, adding that she had all the time shown love towards the boy as if he were her own.
He then recounted instances where she had shown him real affection like decorating his room and paying for holidays for him.
“She even gave him pocket money beyond what I gave him and all the time bought him stuff,” the OP said.
He then claims that she “adored him” and “embraced him immediately” and if she hadn’t, then he would never have married her in the primary place. Hence his confusion now…
The wife’s justification was she wanted photos of just the completely happy couple, “but that’s bulls**t because there have been still other members of the family who weren’t cut out of the photos,” he said.
He also noted that the wife had kept the unique unedited photos, but he was still mad at her.
He flew home early from their honeymoon
“I lost my temper since it felt like she was excluding him and the argument escalated,” the person said. The wife said that he was overreacting and the situation got out of hand.
To make matters worse, this whole debacle went down on their honeymoon, of all places.
At one stage, she even threatened to call his son to point out that he didn’t care about being cut out, however the man told her to not get him involved.
So as an alternative, she called her mom for backup, and he or she ended up telling him to “go easy on her” as she “will need to have been overwhelmed on her big day.”
The altercation ultimately led to him canning the honeymoon altogether and going home early.
“She hasn’t stopped crying about it and saying I’m being awful and that I keep forgetting all the things she’s done for my son up to now…” he concluded his post.
“Why would she only cut out your son?”
Comments were a mixed bag of opinions, with one person arguing, “FFS It’s his SON. Not a cousin or friend, his son. Also, why would she cut ONLY him out of the photos? That’s what worries me.”
Another person agreed: “If she had done it to other people, I’d buy her story, but she didn’t. I don’t think she cares for the boy the best way OP thought. You don’t cut out people you like, full stop.”
One other took a more empathetic approach, saying, “It seems like perhaps he was in every photo, if that’s the case then I can see why his wife edited some.
“She said she wanted a few of just them, don’t forget wife kept the unedited originals as well, so it’s not like she had them tossed/deleted.”
