"Does that make a difference in your evaluation of the scenario?"
Yes, a little. I realize that I overlooked your association with the "bride's" family, as opposed to the groom's. Some thought should have been given to the eccentricities of invited guests prior to the event. Especially the one's from the other side. I am surprised that this wasn't dealt with by the wedding planners at such an elegant affair. Once at the event, idiosyncracies should not be a factor. As you may recall I suggested that if Mr Ham gets in under the Host's radar (Groom's Mom?), and no harm is done (purpose of wedding), then the hostess should just over look the oddity and move on. The wrong is done by whom ever deliberately drew light to themselves or their issues, instead of supporting the bride and groom on their day.
The formality, elegance, decor, etc of the wedding may have in fact been chosen by the hostess to help lift the level of concern for the solemness of the occasion and thus add to, not distract from, the purpose of the wedding. It may also have been the motive of the hostess to have a grand display of oppulance to be a reflection on her self important need to be seen as a member of high class citizenry.
Your habit of casual dress is a non-issue until it is made to be a distraction from the purpose of the wedding. Whoever, did that, is at fault.
FWIW, Thirty five years ago, I was invited to be a member of the wedding. I had arranged for a rented tux to wear during the wedding. When I showed up at rehearsal the Catholic Priest barred me from entry because of my casual attire. That was just before the big explosion of the "let it all hang out" culture. |
