This story is tired, and complete. I’m not reigniting indignation, just conveying conclusion.
When my mother-in-law passed away, there were the usual high tensions and family dramas that accompany, though thankfully do not define, loss. My SIL (the catalyst for this blog transformation), communicated to my husband they wanted “things to go back to the way they used to be”.
I (Maybe we?) existed in a state of truce before her attempt to reconcile. We share space like cats. Each refusing to acknowledge the other’s existence.
Props to her for nerve. I never anticipated an olive branch, nor did I have any intention of offering one. I owe an apology for the caustic things I said, but I am not sorry yet and the things said were true.
After I relocating my blog my anger faded, and I knew this relationship would remain in disrepair. Its existence was defined by circumstance. Had I not married, there would be no obligatory interaction. Agreeing to go on as if nothing happened is disingenuous and belittles both of us.
It wouldn’t have mattered which words were chosen, but the implication that things were better before the “incident” was false. The only difference was her interference and meddling were tolerated…making it better for her. For me, a farce.
I never spoke with family about what happened. I did not denigrate her…even when family told me she had been using information from his Facebook page to manufacture conflict with other family members. I don’t know what has been said between in-laws. Tension is noticeable, but I don’t care.
There was a generalized plea made for everyone to get along, issued with the plaintiveness of a young child ignorant to the complexity of human dynamics. A relationship fabricated from emotional extortion is false and nonconsensual.