As my pre-Valentine grumps continue, I shall polish this week off as quickly as possible, with few frills.
L1: The Prudecutor is wildly wrong. Yes, there is something potentially interesting in LW1's reluctance to have photos of the couple taken. And we don't know what F1 thinks of the matter. That could make for an afternoon of harmless fun. But there are people who are head-ruled sufficiently to think in this way; if they are well-matched in their selection of spouse, then more power to them.
And what this is mainly about is M1 trying to take over the entire wedding. There are those of the ilk who can be appeased. But in the main, it just strengthens the position of such a Plan Changer from which to launch a subsequent attack. Give in on the pictures (though, if F1 likes the idea, it seems a sufficiently low-meaning point that even Drs Cooper and Fowler might be willing to compromise on it) and M1 will start on the location, or the reception, or the cake, or something.
L2: The Prudecutor is wrong. Nobody KNOWS - even after the tight period of not a day short of a year nor a day over eighteen months held as such a strict standard by Dr Schlessinger. It is a leap of faith - which is actually a great deal more romantic than "knowing". The Prudecutor made a leap of faith and got lucky. But lucky people, like Franklin Clarke, tend after sufficient incidence to conflate luck with skill or brains, get careless, and subsequently err. While I should not wish on anyone the fate of thinking wrongly that (s)he is in a monogamous relationship, the Prudecutor tempts me.
As for LW2, the proportions seem odd. Marry after four months' acquaintance - it happens. Plan a wedding for eight months - not excessive. But a wedding involving preparations that took twice as long as the couple's previous acquaintance? While "Rules" of Weddings are beyond my ken, it would seem sensible if such a Principle existed in reverse, that the duration of acquaintance before the engagement should be twice as long as the time spent planning the wedding. That would seem much likelier to produce a successful marriage - not that many wedding planners think beyond the honeymoon.
L3: The Prudecutor has one minor aspect correct, but in most respects is completely on the wrong continent. I shall resist the temptation to wonder about LW3 wishing (s)he'd never read the accusatory email. I am less inclined - assuming LW3 to be male - to excuse his patriarchal attitude. He is far too inclined to take it upon himself to decide what F3 can and cannot handle. If this is not nipped in the bud, then he should break the engagement for her sake.
On the plus side, it seems admirable that LW3 is willing to side with F3 regardless of the truth in the matter, and does not particularly care what that truth may be. But this is a golden opportunity. LW3 ought to be thanking VW3 for the accusation. It has given him the ideal lead-in to a series of conversations that every engaged couple should be having and hardly any ever do. What matters here are not the facts about what F3 did (except in one possible instance and even then not directly) but what F3's views were during the affair (if there was one), and how her attitudes about fidelity changed or were confirmed before, during and after. Have these conversations and the marriage will be a good deal stronger.
It is possible that F3 did act sufficiently badly that she ought to make some gesture of atonement to VW3. In such a case, LW3 has the opportunity to shine by offering to assist F3 in the offering of such a gesture. And this is where the one case for reconsidering the engagement comes in. F3 might clearly have been in the wrong in her past conduct, but might insist, not that LW3 assist her to do the right thing, but that he support her regardless of the probity of her conduct or lack thereof. Perhaps LW3 would be content so to do. Perhaps the difference between them would (as happened with Lord Kidderminster) open his eyes to a new and disturbing aspect of her character.
L4: The Prudecutor is wrong. Do not present it as being old-fashioned. It will lock both LW4 and GF4 into all the wrong gender roles. The prospect is so revolting I am forced to leave off abruptly at this point.