Woman finds out her ex husband cheated from his NYT Wedding Announcement

[Black Ambrosia]

All she really needed was a background check. Not even a private investigator. I'm guessing a credit report would've raised red flags too if he and his first wife had credit together. I'm not blaming the second wife but I'm surprised a woman who owned a vineyard and is a CEO didn't do any due diligence.

 

[Theresamonet]

All she really needed was a background check. Not even a private investigator. I'm guessing a credit report would've raised red flags too if he and his first wife had credit together. I'm not blaming the second wife but I'm surprised a woman who owned a vineyard and is a CEO didn't do any due diligence.

Women who otherwise have all their stuff together and are about their business, don’t do any due diligence when it comes to the man, because they don’t want any bad news. They want to believe that he’s The ONE, and they ain’t going looking for trouble. They make the conscious choice to believe whatever they’re told, because they want the fairytale they’re being sold.

 

[hopeful]

Agreed. She's likely blindsided. But at least she knows what she has now. (in a man/relationship)





I decided to respond here to the bolded in both of your posts as a reflection on this whole issue.

For @hopeful ,
I have no issue with the timeline but I do with the lack of vetting. I know you mentioned that they needed to vet better and I'm all for that. The rush thing? I know couples who marry quickly without problems and those who take years. The key seems to be the vetting and gut instinct over the amount of time. Time can pull people into a false sense of safety and so can all these steps when the key really is to see clearly. We can feel we waited the appropriate time and did everything right only to find that we are still going in a circle if we haven't developed the appropriate skills to vet and to listen to instinct. I don't think we have to become jaded to do this either. I can kick you out with a smile on my face knowing I've made room for an amazing guy to come into my life. Though we may not agree on the timeline I agree with you and @Crackers Phinn on proper vetting and blaring red flags that ppl really want to overlook for whatever reason.

In this case: The first red flag is that he was mia in the beginning because some how she neve r visited his home but he visited hers, even months later because he was still with the first wife. And of course there was a reason as there was no way to visit him as he was living with a whole wife there and a whole other life. He was just coming to her home and I guess making excuses. And sitting in cars talking to her. All of that had to be odd to say the least. It had to make her feel like something was being held back. And I'm not interested in finding excuses, that's just time to move on.

Also: It's important to know the person and the people around them. The first wife says that her ex's relatives apologized to her. I'm sure when the new girflfriend was around the family, there were looks and or uncomfortable quiet. She had to pick up on that. Men are not as complex as women. They quickly unravel if you pull at the seams if something isn't right. With a few questions, I'm sure his façade would fall a part. And that's by listening to what he says and what he doesn't.

nd even with a good liar, if she had common sense enough to be in his life properly there is no way he could have a separate life because she would have already saw his place, family, friends and picked up on any red flags. Tbh he would not get that far when she showed up with coffee/tea or a sandwich impromptu, because she was in the area, at his place and his wife answered. That happens when you're in a relationship. Instead he was making excuses all the time and showing up at her place. There are only so many excuses one could make, "my place is being remodeled" ...really? where are you now? "My place is being fumigated" really Where are you now? "I'm still at the gym." Okay ...see you in a few minutes I still have time . Hey this is a relationship not just some random dude so even though he's doing more to court you, you're still showing you care by showing up in little ways here and there. If he always has an excuse then he's just not that interested, or something else is going on because this is supposed to be a relationship, right?

I think vetting is not something that takes forever. But it does require honesty, following your gut, and also clearly looking at a situation in addition to seeing and desiring the romance part.

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you re having good instincts and trusting/following them. And the importance of thinking clearly, asking the right questions, etc. I think also loving and valuing yourself and the life you have built is critical. So many single women feel ashamed of their singleness. I was married for most of my adult life and now that I am single I can see and feel the difference in how people treat you. I automatically got treated better simply because I was married and married to a successful man. For me having peace and control of my life is worth the trade off. And not saying people treat me badly but I can feel the difference.

She did not have the dating skills that she needed. Many women don’t. She had probably focused most of her energy on taking care of her children and building a successful business. My ex’s new wife is very successful but I feel sure that she is also naive, and was lonely and a bit ashamed of being single.

I was wondering how long you thought it would take for someone to move someone into their home with their children. I ask because I’m sure you don’t think one month would have been enough time. The therapist I worked with during my divorce recommended 3 years before marrying a new person. Her reasoning was that 1) many people can keep up the mask for about that long and 2) she said people should not marry while still in the infatuation stage. I also think our instincts tell us pretty quickly if the person is troubling and not the one, but that it takes time to tell if they are THE ONE for us.

I also think people need training in dating. People focus on finding the one or finding love. I think people also need concrete training on vetting, honing into their intuition, and understanding men’s psyche, and understanding men in general, understanding themselves, and understanding the world better. I don’t think most people see the world clearly, how things really work, etc. The world in general I believe is far more complex and intricate than most people can or want to accept. Lots of wisdom is needed to win and live well.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

Thanks for your comments. I agree with you re having good instincts and trusting/following them. And the importance of thinking clearly, asking the right questions, etc. I think also loving and valuing yourself and the life you have built is critical. So many single women feel ashamed of their singleness. I was married for most of my adult life and now that I am single I can see and feel the difference in how people treat you. I automatically got treated better simply because I was married and married to a successful man. For me having peace and control of my life is worth the trade off. And not saying people treat me badly but I can feel the difference.

She did not have the dating skills that she needed. Many women don’t. She had probably focused most of her energy on taking care of her children and building a successful business. My ex’s new wife is very successful but I feel sure that she is also naive, and was lonely and a bit ashamed of being single.

I was wondering how long you thought it would take for someone to move someone into their home with their children. I ask because I’m sure you don’t think one month would have been enough time. The therapist I worked with during my divorce recommended 3 years before marrying a new person. Her reasoning was that 1) many people can keep up the mask for about that long and 2) she said people should not marry while still in the infatuation stage. I also think our instincts tell us pretty quickly if the person is troubling and not the one, but that it takes time to tell if they are THE ONE for us.

I also think people need training in dating. People focus on finding the one or finding love. I think people also need concrete training on vetting, honing into their intuition, and understanding men’s psyche, and understanding men in general, understanding themselves, and understanding the world better. I don’t think most people see the world clearly, how things really work, etc. The world in general I believe is far more complex and intricate than most people can or want to accept. Lots of wisdom is needed to win and live well.

Oh no. There is no way that she should be moving children in with someone in a month. No way. I am not a fan of anyone moving a guy in unless they are married. Sowwy. This definitely holds true for single parents. Kids don't get to live with a guy (or lady depending on situation/relationship) unless you marry that person. Translation, after marriage then the kids move in. Not even when they're engaged.

I think that even if ppl don't believe in this for other relationships (I am a fan of that for all relationships but hey)...with kids there is too much at stake so at least single parents should adhere to this advice. That's the best way to protect kids emotionally, mentally, spiritually. You have no idea what type of people are out there in the world and you shouldn't expose your kids to your multiple relationships and possibly inappropriate relationships and/or mistakes. So they should've lived separately until they married and that would mean that the person they selected was properly vetted.

She still could've dropped by to see him a lot and met his friends, family, get some back ground checks in, listen to any red flags...way before he was introduced to the kids. The only way he should have remotely been introduced to the kids is when they were serious and talking about marriage. So whatever that timeline was, the kids should be introduced after he's vetted, and once he's marriage material. I assumed they were together a year timeline about. That doesn't seem bad for kids if you know what you're doing. The problem is part of that timeline bled into his relationship with his ex wife and she had no clue allowing this dude to roll over to her house and interact with her kids. That should've been a no no. He should only know they existed but never have met them at that time, and she should've been vetting him and that means knowing more about him and his life. Sure he could vet her as well but not the kids, and he should understand that he won't meet them unless they are in a more serious relationship.

To me the timeline is more organic and varies with honesty. That means that people have to be really honest with themselves. And if they aren't clear on that, then go to a therapist or find a coach or matchmaker that they work well with and agree with their approach, and work with them throughout that process. If someone is awful with seeing signs or naïve, then they need to seek out the knowledge in whatever way they deem necessary to open their eyes. I do think as we get older, there is no long googoo gaga stage, at least not for long. That's for teens and twenties. I did not see that from women in their mid 30s+ whom I worked with while working for a matchmaker. No they were a little more jaded and needed to work on peeling off the layers as they had more of an edge. They needed to let go: realizing there were good guys out there, but that vetting is necessary. It's like looking both ways before crossing the road. We don't get annoyed or angry when doing it, we just do it as it's apart of life. Vetting should be apart of dating but not exhausting or overwhelming. I will have to add, that these were women who were actively dating. If you were just out of a long marriage and never dated before (or very little or not in a long time) and/or just bad at dating or have limited experience for various reasons...this may be different and there is that stage (or rather a long one) where you are in a state where you overlook things as you see things from a fairytale perspective in the honeymoon stage. That requires different tactics and again a coach/therapist, matchmaker could work with someone for that effect. Like for instance perhaps your therapist had a different timeline for you because of your background than she would for someone else. Who knows? Or maybe she has the same one for everyone. Someone like me would not go to her because I don't believe in fixed applications for everyone. We are individuals and therefore I believe in intuitive applications versus fixed.

For someone who knows how to vet and has lots of experience dating, three years may be too long for some. Three years may be perfect it depends again. This is why it's all about being honest with oneself and also the situation. With kids, the timeline should be much longer than if you are by yourself anyways because you are now entrusting not only your life, but the lives of little ones. Regardless it all comes down to true honesty: Knowing and admitting what you're good at and what you need to learn. If you're completely naïve about men then maybe you need to date for a while period. But don't let the timeline lull you into a false sense of security. Make sure you vet properly because we know that still things cannot be all the way guaranteed unfortunately. Sure most ppl can't keep up a mask for three years, but they sure can overlook things for three years. One thing I found when I worked with a matchmaker is that ppl would live together and think the timeline made things okay. Like "We've been together for two years". Yeah what kind of years were they? Sometimes it would be a crazy amount of things that they overlooked because they're together and I guess they just brushed xyz under the rug or assumed it was common or normal when it's not. So again timelines do not guarantee anything to me. But yes of course common sense is necessary especially with kids but still it's necessary no matter what (kids or no).

 

[hopeful]

Oh no. There is no way that she should be moving children in with someone in a month. No way. I am not a fan of anyone moving a guy in unless they are married. Sowwy. This definitely holds true for single parents. Kids don't get to live with a guy (or lady depending on situation/relationship) unless you marry that person. Translation, after marriage then the kids move in. Not even when they're engaged.

I think that even if ppl don't believe in this for other relationships (I am a fan of that for all relationships but hey)...with kids there is too much at stake so at least single parents should adhere to this advice. That's the best way to protect kids emotionally, mentally, spiritually. You have no idea what type of people are out there in the world and you shouldn't expose your kids to your multiple relationships and possibly inappropriate relationships and/or mistakes. So they should've lived separately until they married and that would mean that the person they selected was properly vetted.

She still could've dropped by to see him a lot and met his friends, family, get some back ground checks in, listen to any red flags...way before he was introduced to the kids. The only way he should have remotely been introduced to the kids is when they were serious and talking about marriage. So whatever that timeline was, the kids should be introduced after he's vetted, and once he's marriage material. I assumed they were together a year timeline about. That doesn't seem bad for kids if you know what you're doing. The problem is part of that timeline bled into his relationship with his ex wife and she had no clue allowing this dude to roll over to her house and interact with her kids. That should've been a no no. He should only know they existed but never have met them at that time, and she should've been vetting him and that means knowing more about him and his life. Sure he could vet her as well but not the kids, and he should understand that he won't meet them unless they are in a more serious relationship.

To me the timeline is more organic and varies with honesty. That means that people have to be really honest with themselves. And if they aren't clear on that, then go to a therapist or find a coach or matchmaker that they work well with and agree with their approach, and work with them throughout that process. If someone is awful with seeing signs or naïve, then they need to seek out the knowledge in whatever way they deem necessary to open their eyes. I do think as we get older, there is no long googoo gaga stage, at least not for long. That's for teens and twenties. I did not see that from women in their mid 30s+ whom I worked with while working for a matchmaker. No they were a little more jaded and needed to work on peeling off the layers as they had more of an edge. They needed to let go: realizing there were good guys out there, but that vetting is necessary. It's like looking both ways before crossing the road. We don't get annoyed or angry when doing it, we just do it as it's apart of life. Vetting should be apart of dating but not exhausting or overwhelming. I will have to add, that these were women who were actively dating. If you were just out of a long marriage and never dated before (or very little or not in a long time) and/or just bad at dating or have limited experience for various reasons...this may be different and there is that stage (or rather a long one) where you are in a state where you overlook things as you see things from a fairytale perspective in the honeymoon stage. That requires different tactics and again a coach/therapist, matchmaker could work with someone for that effect. Like for instance perhaps your therapist had a different timeline for you because of your background than she would for someone else. Who knows? Or maybe she has the same one for everyone. Someone like me would not go to her because I don't believe in fixed applications for everyone. We are individuals and therefore I believe in intuitive applications versus fixed.

For someone who knows how to vet and has lots of experience dating, three years may be too long for some. Three years may be perfect it depends again. This is why it's all about being honest with oneself and also the situation. With kids, the timeline should be much longer than if you are by yourself anyways because you are now entrusting not only your life, but the lives of little ones. Regardless it all comes down to true honesty: Knowing and admitting what you're good at and what you need to learn. If you're completely naïve about men then maybe you need to date for a while period. But don't let the timeline lull you into a false sense of security. Make sure you vet properly because we know that still things cannot be all the way guaranteed unfortunately. Sure most ppl can't keep up a mask for three years, but they sure can overlook things for three years. One thing I found when I worked with a matchmaker is that ppl would live together and think the timeline made things okay. Like "We've been together for two years". Yeah what kind of years were they? Sometimes it would be a crazy amount of things that they overlooked because they're together and I guess they just brushed xyz under the rug or assumed it was common or normal when it's not. So again timelines do not guarantee anything to me. But yes of course common sense is necessary especially with kids but still it's necessary no matter what (kids or no).

They had been together for 5 months when she moved him in. I said one month as an example I was sure you wouldn’t think was good. Maybe I misread your previous post. It sounded like you disagreed re me saying 5 months was too soon.

It’s interesting too because you worked with a matchmaker who often worked with single women who were a bit jaded and needed to soften up. My therapist worked with mostly long-timed married women who were more naive because they had been off the dating scene for years and had been focused on their husbands, families, careers, kids, etc., but were now going through the divorce and all the trauma that comes with that.

I think it’s a matter of perspective.

All of the divorce attorneys I encountered advised me to never marry again . They worked so hard to get their clients a good settlement and a new marriage could potentially ruin all of that hard work.

 

[lavaflow99]

They had been together for 5 months when she moved him in. I said one month as an example I was sure you wouldn’t think was good. Maybe I misread your previous post. It sounded like you disagreed re me saying 5 months was too soon.

It’s interesting too because you worked with a matchmaker who often worked with single women who were a bit jaded and needed to soften up. My therapist worked with mostly long-timed married women who were more naive because they had been off the dating scene for years and had been focused on their husbands, families, careers, kids, etc., but were now going through the divorce and all the trauma that comes with that.

I think it’s a matter of perspective.

All of the divorce attorneys I encountered advised me to never marry again . They worked so hard to get their clients a good settlement and a new marriage could potentially ruin all of that hard work.

I agree with this!! As a single woman with no kids. After you have been married once and have children, I don't understand why someone would get married again. You have your kids that were born in wedlock so why? You can still have a great companion without the paperwork and headache. But maybe that is just me.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

They had been together for 5 months when she moved him in. I said one month as an example I was sure you wouldn’t think was good. Maybe I misread your previous post. It sounded like you disagreed re me saying 5 months was too soon.

It’s interesting too because you worked with a matchmaker who often worked with single women who were a bit jaded and needed to soften up. My therapist worked with mostly long-timed married women who were more naive because they had been off the dating scene for years and had been focused on their husbands, families, careers, kids, etc., but were now going through the divorce and all the trauma that comes with that.

I think it’s a matter of perspective.

All of the divorce attorneys I encountered advised me to never marry again. They worked so hard to get their clients a good settlement and a new marriage could potentially ruin all of that hard work.

Yes perspective matters. A divorced woman with kids is going to have different objectives than a woman in their late 30s to mid 40's who has never married who wants kids. Waiting 3 years may be the difference between having kids, or being unable to have them. Vetting has to happen quicker and holding on to guys is not recommended if they are not marriage material. That doesn't mean to be desperate either and just jump in with any dude or the first duede that's compatible. Again it's intuitive because it needs to be the right guy for you who is also properly vetted. So you might just have to wait some years and keep spinning that dating wheel...or not. Someone in their mid 30s may have different objectives or the same as the late 30's mindset and that's what the matchmaker finds out. Same for those who were married before as not married. What do they want? How soon do they want to marry and why? That will determine the type of spouse or partner they are suited for. And regardless, all should still be healthy relationships. Still there are variables: Someone not interested in marrying again, or wanting to wait for huge gaps of 3, 5, 10 plus years if ever is going to have other objectives in vetting and finding a mate. Someone just may want someone to live with, or to date and have as a partner. Someone who marries mid to late 20s is going to have different objectives and different timeline. This is why I said an intuitive approach has to go with it. The matchmaker customized to the ideas and needs of the clients combined with healthy relationship practices. There is no one size fits all in that type of approach.


The matchmaker I worked with often worked with women who have dated ready to settle but also divorcees too. The divorcees were still a little jaded, no stars in their eyes though about love though. I mentioned that because of that "honeymoon stage". The matchmaker seldom dealt with early 20's because the point of her service was to find successful love matches: serious relationships and marriage. (Most) Divorce attorneys are definitely jaded . Of course they would say no way. I'm sure therapists would vary in their view point of the timeline just like they do with so many other things/treatments where one might say 3 years another would say less.

I only disagreed with fixed timelines, not that it was five months. This idea that she might be in trouble for marrying a guy after knowing him for a year (for example) stunned me, versus her getting in a bind for not vetting him properly being the issue. I guess that was more what I meant. Timelines don't matter to me as much as proper vetting and intuition. That doesn't mean that common sense doesn't come into play which is why to me it's obvious that no one should marry in a day and then move their kids in with a guy. No one should rush anything either but sometimes a smaller timeline works for some (and I'm talking smaller than the three years you mentioned as an example because to me that can be excessive for some.) . I was not assessing timeline of moving in, but overall timeline. Either way, I was only talking in general on the timeline not assessing the other issues with the whole mess of their relationship. I listed one example of how the relationship was already dead in the water from the beginning hence there would be no need to move on to the other issues.

It definitely is a matter of perspective....and intuition, and good judgement. You mentioned that some do not have that and I agree that we need to do whatever is necessary to acquire these skillsets. Each person is different so a different approach may work and that includes the type of help they might need. I'm a fan of a therapist (because we all should have some therapy anyways) and matchmaker IF possible but then you need to agree with the therapist. If you are at odds with their style or what they're saying, drop them. Find another that works with your sensibilities. If you are with someone and in the same mindset (say for example the three year therapist and you agree with that timeline)...and that timeline is far for marriage...then maybe wait on the matchmaker. The point of a matchmaker is to find love/relationship/marriage. Your healthy mindset should already be there. The matchmaker (if good) will try to vet the guy too so that means you won't be with married men, criminals, etc but still manipulators , and jerks still need to be filtered as needed. They do their best with that, but again that's still primarily our job.

 

[luckiestdestiny]

I agree with this!! As a single woman with no kids. After you have been married once and have children, I don't understand why someone would get married again. You have your kids that were born in wedlock so why? You can still have a great companion without the paperwork and headache. But maybe that is just me.

but then you aren't looking to get married so none of this applies. You and the jaded divorce attorneys can all live in agreement.

I think that's great as long as you aren't living with random guys with kids involved. But hey that's just me.

 

[caribeandiva]

I’m inclined to believe she was hoping for a fairytale. I say that because of her lack of vetting. She pretty quickly moved a man into her home with her young children. After just five months.

Agreed 100%! There was barely any vetting done at all based on what their wedding article said. Heck a quick search of their state’s official records would quickly turn up a marriage license. Both women messed up when they let him move in with them after a few months of dating. At least wife #1 was childless at the time. Yes he’s trash. 100% basura! Yet all of this could’ve been avoided had they slowed things down and done their proper homework. It sounds to me like he was rushing things and they just went along with it. There were probably plenty of red flags that were ignored along the way.

 

[caribeandiva]

Agreed. She's likely blindsided. But at least she knows what she has now. (in a man/relationship)





I decided to respond here to the bolded in both of your posts as a reflection on this whole issue.

For @hopeful ,
I have no issue with the timeline but I do with the lack of vetting. I know you mentioned that they needed to vet better and I'm all for that. The rush thing? I know couples who marry quickly without problems and those who take years. The key seems to be the vetting and gut instinct over the amount of time. Time can pull people into a false sense of safety and so can all these steps when the key really is to see clearly. We can feel we waited the appropriate time and did everything right only to find that we are still going in a circle if we haven't developed the appropriate skills to vet and to listen to instinct. I don't think we have to become jaded to do this either. I can kick you out with a smile on my face knowing I've made room for an amazing guy to come into my life. Though we may not agree on the timeline I agree with you and @Crackers Phinn on proper vetting and blaring red flags that ppl really want to overlook for whatever reason.

In this case: The first red flag is that he was mia in the beginning because some how she neve r visited his home but he visited hers, even months later because he was still with the first wife. And of course there was a reason as there was no way to visit him as he was living with a whole wife there and a whole other life. He was just coming to her home and I guess making excuses. And sitting in cars talking to her. All of that had to be odd to say the least. It had to make her feel like something was being held back. And I'm not interested in finding excuses, that's just time to move on.

Also: It's important to know the person and the people around them. The first wife says that her ex's relatives apologized to her. I'm sure when the new girflfriend was around the family, there were looks and or uncomfortable quiet. She had to pick up on that. Men are not as complex as women. They quickly unravel if you pull at the seams if something isn't right. With a few questions, I'm sure his façade would fall a part. And that's by listening to what he says and what he doesn't.

nd even with a good liar, if she had common sense enough to be in his life properly there is no way he could have a separate life because she would have already saw his place, family, friends and picked up on any red flags. Tbh he would not get that far when she showed up with coffee/tea or a sandwich impromptu, because she was in the area, at his place and his wife answered. That happens when you're in a relationship. Instead he was making excuses all the time and showing up at her place. There are only so many excuses one could make, "my place is being remodeled" ...really? where are you now? "My place is being fumigated" really Where are you now? "I'm still at the gym." Okay ...see you in a few minutes I still have time . Hey this is a relationship not just some random dude so even though he's doing more to court you, you're still showing you care by showing up in little ways here and there. If he always has an excuse then he's just not that interested, or something else is going on because this is supposed to be a relationship, right?

I think vetting is not something that takes forever. But it does require honesty, following your gut, and also clearly looking at a situation in addition to seeing and desiring the romance part.

I love your whole post!!

 

[caribeandiva]

Women who otherwise have all their stuff together and are about their business, don’t do any due diligence when it comes to the man, because they don’t want any bad news. They want to believe that he’s The ONE, and they ain’t going looking for trouble. They make the conscious choice to believe whatever they’re told, because they want the fairytale they’re being sold.

Really? That surprises me. I assumed they’d be even more careful about their romantic relationships since their hearts are on the line. I guess I was wrong. You know what they say about assuming stuff...

 

[caribeandiva]

It definitely is a matter of perspective....and intuition, and good judgement. You mentioned that some do not have that and I agree that we need to do whatever is necessary to acquire these skillsets.

I really believe that this is where self-love and self-acceptance come into play. Most people are so scared to go see a therapist and do the internal work necessary for healthy self esteem. If you love yourself then you trust yourself and bs wouldn’t fly past you. It would be intolerable to you. Your intuition would be screaming at you loud and clear .

 

[Evolving78]

I really believe that this is where self-love and self-acceptance come into play. Most people are so scared to go see a therapist and do the internal work necessary for healthy self esteem. If you love yourself then you trust yourself and bs wouldn’t fly past you. It would be intolerable to you. Your intuition would be screaming at you loud and clear .

That takes time, money, and a lot of energy. They want somebody to keep that bed warm, so all of that self-love and acceptance goes out the door. Who wants to work on themselves when they could be getting some penis right now? Because that’s what it comes down to.

 

[yamilee21]

Something that is interesting about this story... the "Weddings Announcements" in The New York Times used to be a very, very exclusive thing... think "old-money" New York families with Dutch names, well-connected political-legacy families, occasionally a well-respected celebrity. About 20-25 years ago, it began changing to allow for more "diversity," but this was more about allowing "accomplished" people to showcase themselves, as opposed to showcasing "high society" families. They started publishing wedding announcements for lawyers, doctors, MBAs, etc., with Ivy League degrees, people with high-level positions in important corporations, especially financial firms... even if they were immigrants or children of immigrants, and/or their parents were regular working class or lower middle class people. At some point after this, they also started including same-sex unions. About 5 or 6 years ago, they expanded the criteria again, for even more diversity, and began including many more "interesting" stories... more second or even third marriages, people with unique stories of how they had met, more people with unusual careers or whimsical lifestyles, less emphasis on fancy schools and degrees, and even fewer "society" families. But this particular story is borderline-scandalous, considering what the NY Times Wedding Announcements used to be. So it would not surprise me if, because of this story, they move away a bit from the kinds of announcements they have accepted for publication in recent years, and go back to more traditional criteria.

 

[WhoIAm]

My random thought:
An evangelical minister married a couple that was shacking up? Ok then.

She's a non traditional reverend. Very popular on social media and just as fabolous as her brides.

 

[Theresamonet]

She's a non traditional reverend. Very popular on social media and just as fabolous as her brides.

She is fabulous... But since when is it appropriate for the officiant to show up to the wedding wearing white lace, tulle, and rhinestones? Lol This is what folks are doing now?

 

[Zaz]

Something that is interesting about this story... the "Weddings Announcements" in The New York Times used to be a very, very exclusive thing... think "old-money" New York families with Dutch names, well-connected political-legacy families, occasionally a well-respected celebrity. About 20-25 years ago, it began changing to allow for more "diversity," but this was more about allowing "accomplished" people to showcase themselves, as opposed to showcasing "high society" families. They started publishing wedding announcements for lawyers, doctors, MBAs, etc., with Ivy League degrees, people with high-level positions in important corporations, especially financial firms... even if they were immigrants or children of immigrants, and/or their parents were regular working class or lower middle class people. At some point after this, they also started including same-sex unions. About 5 or 6 years ago, they expanded the criteria again, for even more diversity, and began including many more "interesting" stories... more second or even third marriages, people with unique stories of how they had met, more people with unusual careers or whimsical lifestyles, less emphasis on fancy schools and degrees, and even fewer "society" families. But this particular story is borderline-scandalous, considering what the NY Times Wedding Announcements used to be. So it would not surprise me if, because of this story, they move away a bit from the kinds of announcements they have accepted for publication in recent years, and go back to more traditional criteria.

The woman has an IMDB credit for a reality show with Marc Zuckerberg's sister. Who did communications for FB, then moved onto other big companies. So the new wife seems pretty well connected in the media/communication/marketing world and she's a black female CEO, I don't think she was a complete "diversity push" (in terms of just quirky story, same sex...).

That being said, with how print is going, I would assume they're thanking this two timing husband cuz it's the most anyone's talked about NYT wedding announcements since Sex and the City days probably.

 

[WhoIAm]

She is fabulous... But since when is it appropriate for the officiant to show up to the wedding wearing white lace, tulle, and rhinestones? Lol This is what folks are doing now?

I was initially going to call her very extra but I do like her. At this point, her brides know how she is (I assume most find her on IG) so they all get to be extra together.

Her one wedding that had a little furrow in my brows recently was...

 

[vevster]

I saw a post from her this morning and she still has her ring on.... #goodluckgirl

 

[Curly1908]

The two wives look like sisters. They're old enough to know better - never date a personal trainer, a photographer, or an entrepreneur with few exceptions.

He was looking to scam his way to a better financial life, and those women were desperate and lonely.

I really believe in quick marriages for folks in their 30s, but you have to be someone who doesn't get easily fooled by ********. I hope the 2nd wife got a prenup.