Jump to content
IGNORED

Sierra Jo Dominguez Abysmal Wedding Planner Part 3


Boogalou

Recommended Posts

Well, I had my first (and likely only) child at 32. So I think it's safe to say I won't live long enough to be a great-great-grandmother. I am okay with this though. I'll be happy if I can be a grandmother some day though.

It's possible my only living grandparent could live to see a great-great-grandchild. She will be 83 this year. Her oldest great-grandchild is only 11 though. And I suspect she won't have children until well into her 20's or 30's. So really...it's not super likely. People in my family just tend to have kids later, I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 483
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, Bethella said:

I still don't buy it. Derick's met Spurgeon all of one time and he's going to ignore his four other nieces and nephews while talking about Spurge being his "naturalized nephew". Something is off with the situation.

The term "naturalized nephew" makes no sense. :my_huh: 

I have no trouble believing that Derick feels more interest in Ben and Jessa's child for perfectly "natural" reasons, but why he would refer to Spurgie as "naturalized" anything, I can only guess. 

Maybe he thinks "naturalized" means "in-law" as opposed to biological.  

Maybe he meant to say something about Spurge being a world traveler, the first nephew to leave the US.  (He could have confused "naturalized" with "international" or he invented the word "internationalized" and we have misheard it as "naturalized.")

Maybe he meant that Spurgeon was being brought up "naturally" ( whatever that means to him).

Maybe he thinks "naturalized" means born to be with nature.

Maybe he meant that Spurgeon has such an unnatural name that he needs naturalizing.  :my_biggrin:

The possibilities are endless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

The term "naturalized nephew" makes no sense. :my_huh: 

I have no trouble believing that Derick feels more interest in Ben and Jessa's child for perfectly "natural" reasons, but why he would refer to Spurgie as "naturalized" anything, I can only guess. 

Maybe he thinks "naturalized" means "in-law" as opposed to biological.  

Maybe he meant to say something about Spurge being a world traveler, the first nephew to leave the US.  (He could have confused "naturalized" with "international" or he invented the word "internationalized" and we have misheard it as "naturalized.")

Maybe he meant that Spurgeon was being brought up "naturally" ( whatever that means to him).

Maybe he thinks "naturalized" means born to be with nature.

Maybe he meant that Spurgeon has such an unnatural name that he needs naturalizing.  :my_biggrin:

The possibilities are endless.

 

You're definitely right that the term "naturalized nephew" makes no sense. I think I'm going to go with @ClaraOswin- Derick is an idiot (or maybe he just misspoke). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jill was also quoted as saying something about their next child being a "naturalized citizen of the family," but in the context it seemed like she meant a biological child not an adopted one. So I'm totally confused. But I think they may be also

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My friend, the 3rd child in a family of four girls recently posted a 5 generational picture.

We (my friend and I) are 57

Her daughter is 31

Her daughter has a 1.5 YO son

Then there was my friend's mom and my friend's grandmother.

My friend, who is the 3rd oldest child in her family, has a GRANDMOTHER. I know my friend's dad is 83. I do not know the ages of her mom or GM.

 

I am part of a 4 generation family:

My mom is 80

I am 57 (i am the oldest)

My daughter is 29

My GD is 2.

If my maternal GPs were still alive, they'd be 112 and 116

If my paternal GPs were still alive, they'd be 112 and 120

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I was too late to edit.

I just thought of something.

My ILs would be 95 and 97 [if they were still alive.]

My MIL (97) had 7 children and started in her late 30s.

My hubs is also 57- his mom was 17 years older than my mom.

My MIL had her last kid at 50. She did live to see 11 GKs, but none of her GGCs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here's mine:  titles are in relation to me.....

GreatGrandMa: born June 1901

GrandMa: born May 1923

Dad:  born January 1945

Sister: born February 1968

Nephew: born December 1997

so my GGM was a great grandmother at age 66, and a great great grandma at 96 (only because my sister had no kids until age 29 ).  if my sister had babies by her early 20's, GGM would have had a great great grandchild in her 80's  (she, GM, and D were all 22/23 when they became parents).  we have a photo of all five of them, taken when Nephew was 2 months old.  GGGM passed about a year later, shortly after Nephew #2 was born.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, 2manyKidzzz said:

Maybe Derick was high on bug spray when he talked about the Naturalized Nephew. 

the fumes get trapped in his beard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, patsymae said:

Jill was also quoted as saying something about their next child being a "naturalized citizen of the family," but in the context it seemed like she meant a biological child not an adopted one. So I'm totally confused. But I think they may be also

Where are these Dillards being quoted and by whom?  I can't imagine what they think "naturalized" means, but whatever they think they are saying, "naturalized" is the wrong word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, EmCatlyn said:

Where are these Dillards being quoted and by whom?  I can't imagine what they think "naturalized" means, but whatever they think they are saying, "naturalized" is the wrong word.

perhaps its just another version of them saying anything that come to their minds. 

like Jessa saying we have to bring needful things to SCA 

nothing they say makes sense. And Jill rubbed off on Derick in more ways than one 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it was a post by Derick on their blog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2016 at 10:17 AM, nst said:

I think Derick is an idiot 

but if Jill and Derick are publicly banning Josh, Anna and the kids MORE Power to them 

and that it what it sounds like. 

 

I doubt it, Jill spent all of the Counting On specials tearfully praising Anna for all she has walked through, didn't she? I would assume Derick meant it was the first nephew since he married into the family... so sort of like the first nephew he is related to by virtue of being in the Duggar clan at the time of birth rather than kind of "adopting" these already born kids as nieces and nephews at the time of his marriage. It's basically an abuse of the english language, I only got there because to naturalize is to adopt a person as a citizen of a country they were not born in, so Derick was "naturalized" into the Duggar clan and since then Spurge is the first nephew. But that is my guess. I'm sure it'll make Anna and any kids old enough to understand that who might overhear it REALLY feel welcome though (no one cares about Josh's feelings, obvi).

 

ETA: but really if anything the M kids should be considered "naturalized" nieces and nephews if we are going with the "I adopted them as part of my family when I married Jill" theory, whereas Spurgeon would be a "born" nephew (ie "all persons born and naturalized" being the two phrasing options). But I think Derick obviously just picked a word, it sounded good in his head, and he has no idea what he is blathering on about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, OrchidBlossom said:

I doubt it, Jill spent all of the Counting On specials tearfully praising Anna for all she has walked through, didn't she? I would assume Derick meant it was the first nephew since he married into the family... so sort of like the first nephew he is related to by virtue of being in the Duggar clan at the time of birth rather than kind of "adopting" these already born kids as nieces and nephews at the time of his marriage. It's basically an abuse of the english language, I only got there because to naturalize is to adopt a person as a citizen of a country they were not born in, so Derick was "naturalized" into the Duggar clan and since then Spurge is the first nephew. But that is my guess. I'm sure it'll make Anna and any kids old enough to understand that who might overhear it REALLY feel welcome though (no one cares about Josh's feelings, obvi).

ETA: but really if anything the M kids should be considered "naturalized" nieces and nephews if we are going with the "I adopted them as part of my family when I married Jill" theory, whereas Spurgeon would be a "born" nephew (ie "all persons born and naturalized" being the two phrasing options). But I think Derick obviously just picked a word, it sounded good in his head, and he has no idea what he is blathering on about.

I agree completely.  I think Derick has been using the word "naturalized" (incorrectly) in place of "natural." And I agree that he probably meant that Spurge was the first nephew born since he married into the family. (Meredith, as I pointed out elsewhere, was the first niece.) 

When he says that their next child will probably be a "naturalized citizen of the family," he seems to mean "natural-born" as opposed to adopted.  Here he clearly meant "natural born." He may have been thinking (as you point out) that the M-boys were born before he entered the family and so had to be adopted as nephews (or he had to be adopted/naturalized as uncle. They weren't his nephews from their birth.) It is indeed ironic that he is reallysaying the opposite of what he seems to mean.

The confusion of "natural" and "naturalized" is not as odd in a "college-educated person" as it would seem.  I get college students (even the occasional graduate student) using "simplistic" (which has negative connotations) in place of "simple" and thinking that "irregardless" (not a real word) is abetter choice than "regardless."  The "longer" word is seen as fancier, more emphatic, more "sophisticated."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2016 at 7:38 AM, CTRLZero said:

According to Esmerelda, they had her quote a budget for the dress on film, but the dress she picked out was given to her after fitting, etc., for free.   TLC apparently doesn't tell the viewers that the dress is included as payment for filming the episode, but at least in Esmerelda's case that is what happened.  I've only seen the one episode (and that's enough for me, lol), so I may have not understood the premise of the series.  That's pretty much all I know.

Sorry to be quoting myself, but I wanted to add this one tidbit from the so-called reality show "Say Yes to the Dress."  I just learned that the dress Esmerelda said yes to was not the dress she really picked out!  So, now it is confirmed that the show is even more fake than even I naively realized.  And now that is really all I know.

:dontgetit:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎5‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 1:34 AM, Bethella said:

You're definitely right that the term "naturalized nephew" makes no sense. I think I'm going to go with @ClaraOswin- Derick is an idiot (or maybe he just misspoke). 

I didn't see whatever was actually said so excuse my ignorance but... "nephew"? Are girls no longer allowed to be born into the family or is someone actually pregnant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, notsofundie said:

I didn't see whatever was actually said so excuse my ignorance but... "nephew"? Are girls no longer allowed to be born into the family or is someone actually pregnant?

Derick's comment was about his first "naturalized nephew." He was referring to Jessa and Ben's son, Spurgeon, who is Derick's nephew, but that doesn't take into account Josh's kids.... so who knows. Like I said last time, Derick is an idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2016 at 4:51 PM, catlady said:

here's mine:  titles are in relation to me.....

GreatGrandMa: born June 1901

GrandMa: born May 1923

Dad:  born January 1945

Sister: born February 1968

Nephew: born December 1997

so my GGM was a great grandmother at age 66, and a great great grandma at 96 (only because my sister had no kids until age 29 ).  if my sister had babies by her early 20's, GGM would have had a great great grandchild in her 80's  (she, GM, and D were all 22/23 when they became parents).  we have a photo of all five of them, taken when Nephew was 2 months old.  GGGM passed about a year later, shortly after Nephew #2 was born.

On my mom's side, my great grandmother lived to see her great great grandchildren (I believe she only met 1, but 3 were born before she passed).

Generation #1-- 1912
Generation #1-- 1930
Generation #3-- 1949, 1949 (Irish twins)
Generation #4-- 1969, 1971, 1980, 1982
Generation #5-- 1992, 1997, 2000, 2011, 2011 (twins), 2012, 2014

One photo exists with 5 generations from my cousin's 1996 wedding.  Only one of her 3 kids (the oldest of generation 5) were born then. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My grandparents and great-grandparents were in their thirties before they started having kids, so we missed a generation. I remember being very confused as a child when my teacher (who was my mom's age) mentioned that her great-grandma was turning 100 the year mine would have turned 100.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, General Jinjur said:

My grandparents and great-grandparents were in their thirties before they started having kids, so we missed a generation. I remember being very confused as a child when my teacher (who was my mom's age) mentioned that her great-grandma was turning 100 the year mine would have turned 100.

It is strange isn't it. I haven't had grandparents since I was 12 so it so strange to me at least when I hear people my age or even older then me still having grandparents. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Jana814 said:

It is strange isn't it. I haven't had grandparents since I was 12 so it so strange to me at least when I hear people my age or even older then me still having grandparents. 

Me too. I work with a guy in his fifties who still has a grandma. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 19 cats and counting said:

On my mom's side, my great grandmother lived to see her great great grandchildren (I believe she only met 1, but 3 were born before she passed).

Generation #1-- 1912
Generation #1-- 1930
Generation #3-- 1949, 1949 (Irish twins)
Generation #4-- 1969, 1971, 1980, 1982
Generation #5-- 1992, 1997, 2000, 2011, 2011 (twins), 2012, 2014

One photo exists with 5 generations from my cousin's 1996 wedding.  Only one of her 3 kids (the oldest of generation 5) were born then. 

we have this is my family too, (Generation #1 being in 1903) I think the pic was taken in around '96 or '97 also. (not my part of the family, but my uncles side made it, and probably my aunt's too , as she was the oldest sibling)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, nausicaa said:

Me too. I work with a guy in his fifties who still has a grandma. 

Wow!!  I can't imagine that. I have a friend who is super close to her grandmother. My friend is 35. When this woman passes away I think my friend will go nuts. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just turning 46 and still have my maternal grandmother. My husband also has his maternal grandmother. They are both 92. Technically we could be 5 generations but our boys are only 19 and 21 and in no way ready for their own kids.

My husband has a cousin whose oldest daughter has 2 kids of her own so they do have the 5 generations on that side.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • SpoonfulOSugar locked this topic

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.