I think part of all this may just be the wheel of Fashion. I live in Northern California, and there seems to be a great deal of interest among young people, especially young families, in growing one's own food. In San Francisco (I don't live there, but I subscribe to their newspaper), the garden pages seem to spend most of their time on that and on Urban Farming,and Going Green. I have no problem with any of those subjects, but there has gotten to be less and less in that paper about the kind of gardening some of the rest of us are interested in. This is all natural, as Fashion is always with us, its object of interest being the only thing that changes. I also think that it is natural that these types of gardening are the focus now - people are concerned about the planet's dwindling resources, climate change and its effects, and corporate irresponsibility. I believe and hope, however, that interest in Old Roses will stay alive, though it may go a bit dormant for awhile. I work as a volunteer at the Historic Rose Garden in the Old Sacramento City Cemetery, and that is certainly a labor of love. We do have a major event every Spring, that being the Open Garden and Rose Sale. It's not a "Rose Show", except in the sense that the whole garden is a wonderful "show". I don't think we indulge in any "one-up-man-ship", as all the roses are of interest to us, although we are, of course, proud of them. People come to that event from miles around, partly to see the garden at its best, and partly to buy the rose plants that are grown from cuttings from some of the garden's own roses, many of which are no longer available commercially. The atmosphere on that day is really wonderful - new people being amazed at the size and beauty of the place, returning people enjoying seeing old rose friends, and everyone just enjoying themselves. AND... of course, a real rush to buy the plant (or plants) you've always wanted! So I remain optimistic -- call me cock-eyed! Laura

And you know what else it isn't about? The OP's relationship with his wife. Reading Chase's post about there being a tradition of the groom's mother and bride's father walking out together made me see this differently, even though I agree that no rule in the world is going to make a difference in this situation, and even though I still would give the OP the same advice. What made me think about this is the brief detour into discussing Jewish weddings, where all the parents escort and stand with the couple. Obviously, where there are remarriages and stepparents, this could get complicated. But people manage just fine, and the reason, I realized, is that they are participating as their children's parents, not as their current spouses' escorts. If both parents are alive, they participate as usual; if one is dead, the surviving parent does, sometimes with a stepparent, especially if that stepparent helped raise the child. Most people handle it graciously even where there are hard feelings between ex-spouses, because they both still are parents to their child, and new spouses understand that this isn't about them, it's about the parent-child relationship. It's the same thing here: the OP will be participating in the wedding as the bride's father, not as his wife's husband. We have no way of knowing if the bride would not have asked for exactly the same thing were the OP still happily married to her mom, whom she adored (and maybe she does indeed love her stepmother). Especially now that I know that in some weddings, this is even seen as traditional, I would not take it as symbolic of anything about the OP's marriage, much less a slap to anyone. After all, he is planning on walking down the aisle with his daughter, not his wife, for the processional -- and that doesn't seem to bother anyone (except maybe me, but that's a whole different story!) -- I mean, no one sees that as "ditching" his wife. His walking out with the groom's mother wouldn't be, either. I still think that this bride is kind of juvenile in her choices. But as I suggested earlier, the OP is being pretty self-centered himself if he thinks anyone is going to be focusing on him or his marriage. It's just not about him. If there really is a problem in this family about the OP's remarriage, the daughter's wedding is not the time, after 12 years, to be working it out.

that was great! I also loved this one at Denver airport, I didn't know that many young people could dance like that. very uplifting. Here is a link that might be useful: Denver

Thanks, Talley Sue, that's exactly what I meant. That's really interesting; I had no idea that professional (as in outside, not in terms of their professionalism) musicians were rare at church weddings. What happens when the wedding is held not at a church, but at a hotel or restaurant or some other "event space"? Please forgive my ignorance. I really am just curious, not criticizing. As we don't use an organ, we don't have an "in-house" musician to play processionals, so everyone hires someone to play while the guests are being seated and then for the processional and recessional. Often a violin and flute and/or piano, or guitar and flute. Once every never, a harp. That's why I really was surprised at the idea that the outside musicians (NOT volunteering friends and family) would even be at the rehearsal at all. Most musicians have a two-hour minimum charge, and I was surprised that people would pay that just to have them at a rehearsal -- the musicians don't need it. Also, I can imagine that if your rehearsal were on a Friday or Saturday night, they would not want to give up a potential full evening gig for a rehearsal.