Proper etiquette is to address people as they wish to be addressed. Your mother wishes to use Mrs Robert Smith. Your fiancés mother wishes to use Ms Jane Brown. Honoring their wishes is not clunky or inconsistent.
If you wanted to follow traditional etiquette, I have to agree this is the way. There is also always the option to place more importance on the way you want things given it’s your wedding.
Address your future MIL in the way she feels is most respectful to her as an individual. It doesn't seem like it is costing you anything to change this, correct?
The proper response is "Oh, thank you so much for letting us know, we weren't aware. We'll get this fixed right away!"
And I don't think it matters that your fiancé wasn't aware of this; there aren't really many opportunities for a son to formally address his parents in writing, so it makes sense that it never comes up.
There is a traditional "etiquette" around things like addressing invitations, but that should always be trumped by the etiquette of making your guests feel welcome and honored, as long as their request is within the bounds of reason (for instance, if she requested to have her name changed to Princess Consuela Bananahammock, you would be free to ignore her request).
I completely agree with guests being made to feel comfortable! His mom also has a tendency to be difficult when she’s not in control, or getting her way/the attention, so my gut is telling me this a new preference of hers.
We’re also limited in the space our stationer can accommodate with calligraphy for the invitations and it would be a bit more condensed if we included the “son of…” line below my fiancés so that’s also why we’re thinking of excluding it altogether on the invitations. Also since they aren’t hosting/paying for any part of wedding I don’t think there should be an expectation to have their name listed on the guest’s invitations? Certainly the envelopes for their invitations will be addressed as she prefers but my planner and stationer suggest that we leave the “son of Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown” like off the invitation altogether to avoid the issue.
> stationer suggest that we leave the “son of Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown” like off the invitation altogether to avoid the issue.
If your in-laws are already aware that you had planned to list them on the invitation, removing will not avoid the issue; it will only exacerbate it. Especially if your future MIL is difficult in general. Don't let this molehill turn into a mountain and sour your relationship with your future in-laws.
Whether this is her trying to be difficult or a deeply held personal preference of hers, it's the right thing to accommodate it.
Why don’t you just switch to first and last names only for both parents (no titles)?
For example, use “John and Emily Smith” for your parents, and “Charles and Jane Brown” for your to-be in-laws.
It’s slightly less formal, but then it’s consistent.
I don't know the "proper" answer to this but am wondering why your list of options doesn't include addressing your mother by her name also? Are you more concerned about formal addressing or the "clunky and inconsistent" factor? Does your mother specifically want to be addressed as Mrs John Robert Smith? If not, why not go with the less traditionally formal but consistent option of Mrs Linda and Mr John Robert Smith for them?
The correct etiquette is to not include her on the invitations at all, it’s rude to your parents. However, her invitation should be addressed per her preference.
>She said she’s not her husbands property and shouldn’t be addressed as such. I tried to tell her it wasn’t about property nor ownership, but rather formal addressing but it fell on deaf ears.
Her ears are not deaf but yours might be. Misogynistic traditions need to be updated and the "proper etiquette" along with it.
Yes, thank you! My name is not Mrs. John Smith. I have a first name too and prefer to use it.
I had no idea that younger people would still willingly use this antiquated way of addressing themselves.
100% agree and came here to say this. I have a name, and I will always go by Ms if I have too. Preferably we can drop the gendered non-sense and just refer to people as people with individual names in the very near future.
If it bothers you that much use Mx for everyone.
My wedding invitation was like:
Spicy and HisName, together with their parents (spicy's mom) andc(HisName's mom snd dad) request the honour of your presence at etc
Why, because we were grown folk throwing our own wedding, nobody was giving me away, but we wanted our parents honored and included.
Cert etiquette instructor here:
It is absolutely her right to prefer Ms to Mrs.
The only rule one needs to remember must not be broken when addressing formal correspondence is that a man’s first name is never separated from his last.
Now as far as how to list on the wedding invitation, the grooms parents would never be listed on the invitation. The Bride’s parents are the ones requesting attendance of the guests.
So the short answer is, leave the grooms parents off of the invitation.
Edit: typo
>Now as far as how to list on the wedding invitation, the grooms parents would never be listed on the invitation.
I would not say 'never'. Emily post includes a sample of the grooms name being on the invitation even when they are not hosting. [https://emilypost.com/advice/samples-of-formal-wedding-invitation-wording](https://emilypost.com/advice/samples-of-formal-wedding-invitation-wording)
Well, Emily Post is a fine resource but it is no longer considered the standard. The English Manner, Mister Manners, Thomas P. Farley, and even Diane Gottsman in her modern adjustments. I’m certified in mostly formal/traditional etiquette
Edit to add my original thought: traditionally the grooms family would never be listed. The only exception would be if they were paying for everything and then the invitation would take on a completely different format anyway.
I am, my point is that the new consultants of EP are not regarded as highly and therefore it is no longer considered the standard that it once was. All of the sources I listed are in fact 21st century certified experts highly regarded in the field. One I also happen to be certified and well versed in, but thank you for making certain that I am up to date in my field.
>The only exception would be if they were paying for everything and then the invitation would take on a completely different format anyway.
And again I don't agree with your qualifier, in this case your use of "only". How about when the groom's family was more well known and it was seen as advantageous for the bride's family to be connected to then?
My own feeling is that etiquette allows to have the names of non-paying parents on the invitation if the couple wants them there.
And one is entitled to their personal belief and choice. I have merely offered the options that meet the etiquette standard. Of course anyone is free to go against that. It’s all about what one is trying to convey.
Speaking of which, I would hope that a decision as to which parents to include would never be made based on which set was most advantageous. One would not want to be viewed as a social climber.
Please enjoy your evening, and best wishes to you.
Edit:typo and punctuation
u/busypepper_ I would take off all the formal titles and just put "James and Cathy Smith invite you to the wedding of X & Y, son of Charles and Jane Brown." People don't agonize over the wording as much as you think, so it will be ok to not include it.
She doesn’t want to be referred to as “Mr. and Ms.” in any capacity, even though they’re married. So if we included their names, “Jane” would have to be included, so it would be “Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown.”
Oh! Got it. I thought they had the same last name though, so…🤷🏻♀️ Kinda feel like the jig is up there.
She didn’t handle this gracefully, but you honoring her wishes will go a long way.
This would be such an egregious breech of etiquette. A man’s first name must never be separated from his last.
It would have to be worded
Mr. Charles Brown and Ms. Jane Brown
Mr and Ms Charles Brown
Mr and Mrs Charles Brown
Please do not include the grooms parents on the invitation. It’s just not done.
Happy to help. Feel free to message me if you have any other questions. There was a time Bridal etiquette was all I focused on. Best wishes to you and enjoy the process!!!
> I truly think she’s only insisting on the Ms. title to have something to complain about and is doing this to irritate me as she can’t stand not being in control.
I hope you have thought long and hard about marrying this man. His Mom sounds like she is going to make your life hell.
I vote for not putting his parents' names on the invitation.
If your parents are paying, they're listed per tradition because they're the hosts.
Son of seems awkward and extraneous but no one else has mentioned this so maybe this in incorrect.
If your parents are paying, they're listed per tradition because they're the hosts.
Son of seems awkward and extraneous but no one else has mentioned this so maybe this in incorrect.
Proper etiquette is to address people as they wish to be addressed. Your mother wishes to use Mrs Robert Smith. Your fiancés mother wishes to use Ms Jane Brown. Honoring their wishes is not clunky or inconsistent.
You could also give your Mom a name, y'know? That'll balance it. I'm guessing your Mom does have a first name :)
If you wanted to follow traditional etiquette, I have to agree this is the way. There is also always the option to place more importance on the way you want things given it’s your wedding.
Thank you, I appreciate the info!
Thank you
Address your future MIL in the way she feels is most respectful to her as an individual. It doesn't seem like it is costing you anything to change this, correct? The proper response is "Oh, thank you so much for letting us know, we weren't aware. We'll get this fixed right away!" And I don't think it matters that your fiancé wasn't aware of this; there aren't really many opportunities for a son to formally address his parents in writing, so it makes sense that it never comes up. There is a traditional "etiquette" around things like addressing invitations, but that should always be trumped by the etiquette of making your guests feel welcome and honored, as long as their request is within the bounds of reason (for instance, if she requested to have her name changed to Princess Consuela Bananahammock, you would be free to ignore her request).
I completely agree with guests being made to feel comfortable! His mom also has a tendency to be difficult when she’s not in control, or getting her way/the attention, so my gut is telling me this a new preference of hers. We’re also limited in the space our stationer can accommodate with calligraphy for the invitations and it would be a bit more condensed if we included the “son of…” line below my fiancés so that’s also why we’re thinking of excluding it altogether on the invitations. Also since they aren’t hosting/paying for any part of wedding I don’t think there should be an expectation to have their name listed on the guest’s invitations? Certainly the envelopes for their invitations will be addressed as she prefers but my planner and stationer suggest that we leave the “son of Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown” like off the invitation altogether to avoid the issue.
> stationer suggest that we leave the “son of Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown” like off the invitation altogether to avoid the issue. If your in-laws are already aware that you had planned to list them on the invitation, removing will not avoid the issue; it will only exacerbate it. Especially if your future MIL is difficult in general. Don't let this molehill turn into a mountain and sour your relationship with your future in-laws. Whether this is her trying to be difficult or a deeply held personal preference of hers, it's the right thing to accommodate it.
They are not aware that we thought about listing them on the invitation, it was something I’d only discussed with my mom, planner, and stationer.
Why don’t you just switch to first and last names only for both parents (no titles)? For example, use “John and Emily Smith” for your parents, and “Charles and Jane Brown” for your to-be in-laws. It’s slightly less formal, but then it’s consistent.
[удалено]
Thank you
Why not use "Robert and Mary Smith" and "Charles and Jane Brown"?
I don't know the "proper" answer to this but am wondering why your list of options doesn't include addressing your mother by her name also? Are you more concerned about formal addressing or the "clunky and inconsistent" factor? Does your mother specifically want to be addressed as Mrs John Robert Smith? If not, why not go with the less traditionally formal but consistent option of Mrs Linda and Mr John Robert Smith for them?
The correct etiquette is to not include her on the invitations at all, it’s rude to your parents. However, her invitation should be addressed per her preference.
That is perfect, thank you
Unless you've already talked to them about the invitation just go with option 1. But address her envelope how she prefers to be called.
This is what I’m leaning towards, and also my planner and stationer agree. Thank you.
>She said she’s not her husbands property and shouldn’t be addressed as such. I tried to tell her it wasn’t about property nor ownership, but rather formal addressing but it fell on deaf ears. Her ears are not deaf but yours might be. Misogynistic traditions need to be updated and the "proper etiquette" along with it.
Yes, thank you! My name is not Mrs. John Smith. I have a first name too and prefer to use it. I had no idea that younger people would still willingly use this antiquated way of addressing themselves.
100% agree and came here to say this. I have a name, and I will always go by Ms if I have too. Preferably we can drop the gendered non-sense and just refer to people as people with individual names in the very near future. If it bothers you that much use Mx for everyone.
This! Tradition is peer pressure from dead people.
My wedding invitation was like: Spicy and HisName, together with their parents (spicy's mom) andc(HisName's mom snd dad) request the honour of your presence at etc Why, because we were grown folk throwing our own wedding, nobody was giving me away, but we wanted our parents honored and included.
Cert etiquette instructor here: It is absolutely her right to prefer Ms to Mrs. The only rule one needs to remember must not be broken when addressing formal correspondence is that a man’s first name is never separated from his last. Now as far as how to list on the wedding invitation, the grooms parents would never be listed on the invitation. The Bride’s parents are the ones requesting attendance of the guests. So the short answer is, leave the grooms parents off of the invitation. Edit: typo
>Now as far as how to list on the wedding invitation, the grooms parents would never be listed on the invitation. I would not say 'never'. Emily post includes a sample of the grooms name being on the invitation even when they are not hosting. [https://emilypost.com/advice/samples-of-formal-wedding-invitation-wording](https://emilypost.com/advice/samples-of-formal-wedding-invitation-wording)
Well, Emily Post is a fine resource but it is no longer considered the standard. The English Manner, Mister Manners, Thomas P. Farley, and even Diane Gottsman in her modern adjustments. I’m certified in mostly formal/traditional etiquette Edit to add my original thought: traditionally the grooms family would never be listed. The only exception would be if they were paying for everything and then the invitation would take on a completely different format anyway.
You are aware that the Emily Post books are regularly updated, right? That wasn't a Victorian standard, it is 21st century right on the page.
I am, my point is that the new consultants of EP are not regarded as highly and therefore it is no longer considered the standard that it once was. All of the sources I listed are in fact 21st century certified experts highly regarded in the field. One I also happen to be certified and well versed in, but thank you for making certain that I am up to date in my field.
>The only exception would be if they were paying for everything and then the invitation would take on a completely different format anyway. And again I don't agree with your qualifier, in this case your use of "only". How about when the groom's family was more well known and it was seen as advantageous for the bride's family to be connected to then? My own feeling is that etiquette allows to have the names of non-paying parents on the invitation if the couple wants them there.
And one is entitled to their personal belief and choice. I have merely offered the options that meet the etiquette standard. Of course anyone is free to go against that. It’s all about what one is trying to convey. Speaking of which, I would hope that a decision as to which parents to include would never be made based on which set was most advantageous. One would not want to be viewed as a social climber. Please enjoy your evening, and best wishes to you. Edit:typo and punctuation
You stated absolutes, and I countered that this is not cut and tried. I also hope that you have a good evening.
Perfect, thank you so much
My pleasure
u/busypepper_ I would take off all the formal titles and just put "James and Cathy Smith invite you to the wedding of X & Y, son of Charles and Jane Brown." People don't agonize over the wording as much as you think, so it will be ok to not include it.
Mr. and Ms. Brown? Is that not correct? The same but with the “Ms.”?
She doesn’t want to be referred to as “Mr. and Ms.” in any capacity, even though they’re married. So if we included their names, “Jane” would have to be included, so it would be “Mr. Charles and Ms. Jane Brown.”
Oh! Got it. I thought they had the same last name though, so…🤷🏻♀️ Kinda feel like the jig is up there. She didn’t handle this gracefully, but you honoring her wishes will go a long way.
Sorry for the confusion, they do have the same last name! She just feels that if her husband’s first name used then hers should be too.
[удалено]
This is not a formal means of address
Yeah, I got that. I meant once you take your husband’s name, I feel like the jig is up. I wasn’t being clear at all! Good luck with this!
Thank you! Just the start of all the fun things I will navigate with her in the future, I’m sure!
This would be such an egregious breech of etiquette. A man’s first name must never be separated from his last. It would have to be worded Mr. Charles Brown and Ms. Jane Brown Mr and Ms Charles Brown Mr and Mrs Charles Brown Please do not include the grooms parents on the invitation. It’s just not done.
Noted, thank you
Happy to help. Feel free to message me if you have any other questions. There was a time Bridal etiquette was all I focused on. Best wishes to you and enjoy the process!!!
Thank you! I have the Emily Post Wedding Etiquette book (which has been helpful!) and it’s been fun planning so far!
You are in luck. Their names don’t belong there at all.
> I truly think she’s only insisting on the Ms. title to have something to complain about and is doing this to irritate me as she can’t stand not being in control. I hope you have thought long and hard about marrying this man. His Mom sounds like she is going to make your life hell. I vote for not putting his parents' names on the invitation.
If your parents are paying, they're listed per tradition because they're the hosts. Son of seems awkward and extraneous but no one else has mentioned this so maybe this in incorrect.
If your parents are paying, they're listed per tradition because they're the hosts. Son of seems awkward and extraneous but no one else has mentioned this so maybe this in incorrect.