NationStates Jolt Archive

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith

that one, i think.

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

Once question for you though.

If he's your finance, why would you include his last name as yours on the wedding invitation?

The invitation is the invitation to the event. IE the invitation predates the wedding.

If Judy Doe marries John Smith then she's still Judy Doe when the invitation is written.

it is "The Wedding of Mr. John Smith to Ms. Judy Doe". You wouldn't put his surname as yours on the invitation to your wedding since it hasn't occured yet.

if that makes sense.

edit: what I mean to say is, traditionally the wife takes the surname of the husband. You're not a wife yet, so you haven't taken the name of the husband you don't currently have. So your name today is "judy doe" not "judy smith". So the wedding is between John Smith and Judy Doe, she doesn't become Judy Smith until the marriage is complete.

formal invitations = formal address

mr and mrs john smith.


get a book of etiquette from the library, its covered there

that one, i think.

I agree. It makes sense.

I don't like that tradition either, so I would call them

Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith



If I get married, it would be cool to combine my surname and her surname into a new one.

formal invitations = formal address

mr and mrs john smith.


get a book of etiquette from the library, its covered there

but they are not Mr. and Mrs. yet, and won't be at the start of the wedding.

You are inviting guests to witness the marriage of Mr. and Ms., to BECOME Mr. and Mrs.

She, right now, is not Mrs. anything, and when the guests get the invitation she won't be Mrs. anything. And when she walks down the isle she won't be Mrs. anything.

I know several people have done it the way I suggest "the marriage of Mr. Smith to Ms. Jones" or "the marriage of Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones".

And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

i think women should keep their names. its so much easier to find them later. plus in this age of divorce it ends up as a sucession of different last names.

i kept mine. ive now been married for 23 years with no divorce in sight. you just never know eh?

I agree. It makes sense.

i think i've seen that one on invitations my parents get for things. but then my mum also still has her maiden name so it gets all confusing round here ;)


as for the second OP question about women taking their husbands' name.... i really don't care. i think actually the best thing would be for both me and her to take each-other's name as middle names or something

Once question for you though.

If he's your finance, why would you include his last name as yours on the wedding invitation?

The invitation is the invitation to the event. IE the invitation predates the wedding.

If Judy Doe marries John Smith then she's still Judy Doe when the invitation is written.

it is "The Wedding of Mr. John Smith to Ms. Judy Doe". You wouldn't put his surname as yours on the invitation to your wedding since it hasn't occured yet.

if that makes sense.

edit: what I mean to say is, traditionally the wife takes the surname of the husband. You're not a wife yet, so you haven't taken the name of the husband you don't currently have. So your name today is "judy doe" not "judy smith". So the wedding is between John Smith and Judy Doe, she doesn't become Judy Smith until the marriage is complete.

This makes the sense.

but they are not Mr. and Mrs. yet, and won't be at the start of the wedding.

You are inviting guests to witness the marriage of Mr. and Ms., to BECOME Mr. and Mrs.

She, right now, is not Mrs. anything, and when the guests get the invitation she won't be Mrs. anything. And when she walks down the isle she won't be Mrs. anything.

I know several people have done it the way I suggest "the marriage of Mr. Smith to Ms. Jones" or "the marriage of Mr. Smith and Ms. Jones".

i decided that that wasnt what she was talking about.

I would lose the honorifcs and go with "Judy and John Smith." I think that's cleaner.

Keeping your own surname is much more prevalent now, of course, and I suspect the children of those couples aren't overly confused. After all, they're likely to be in school with kids who have parents and step-parents and all sorts of combinations. The good thing is, it's totally up to you, Dem.

i decided that that wasnt what she was talking about.

fair enough, if she wants to actually refer to herself as Mrs in the invitation I personally prefer:

Mr. John and Ms. Judy Smith.

substitute Dr. or other particular title as appropriate, IF she wants to do it that way.

personally I prefer "the wedding of Mr. John Smith and Ms. Judy Doe" as she isn't Judy Smith yet.

fair enough, if she wants to actually refer to herself as Mrs in the invitation I personally prefer:

Mr. John and Ms. Judy Smith.

substitute Dr. or other particular title as appropriate, IF she wants to do it that way.

personally I prefer "the wedding of Mr. John Smith and Ms. Judy Doe" as she isn't Judy Smith yet.

it would be horribly incorrect to refer to herself as her fiance's wife in the invitation.

how you put the parents names or address the envelopes should be determined by how formal your wedding is. if you are going formal all the way, with engraved invitations and all, you should follow etiquette. with formal you dont pick and choose.

if you arent that formal jane and john smith is just fine.

Once question for you though.

If he's your finance, why would you include his last name as yours on the wedding invitation?

I'm not. However, since our parents are contributing, their names are going to be listed, and they're already married. =)

We'll be listed just under our full names.

The wording is something like this:

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
and
Mr. and Mrs. Jack and Jill Doe
invite you to be a part of
the marriage of their children
Cindy Lue Smith and Brian George Doe
at [Location]
on [Date] at [Time]

Sorry if that was confusing.

formal invitations = formal address

mr and mrs john smith.

But like I said, I don't like that convention. I think it is rude to the woman in the relationship to act as if she somehow took on her husband's full name when she actually didn't.

That is what ettiquette says, but I don't like it, so I'm trying to figure out the most formal way to change it.

I think "Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith" sounds fine. I'd go with that one.

I'm not. However, since our parents are contributing, their names are going to be listed, and they're already married. =)

We'll be listed just under our full names.

The wording is something like this:

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
and
Mr. and Mrs. Jack and Jill Doe
invite you to be a part of
the marriage of their children
Cindy Lue Smith and Brian George Doe
at [Location]
on [Date] at [Time]

Sorry if that was confusing.



But like I said, I don't like that convention. I think it is rude to the woman in the relationship to act as if she somehow took on her husband's full name when she actually didn't.

That is what ettiquette says, but I don't like it, so I'm trying to figure out the most formal way to change it.

Ahhh yes, then that makes sense then. Mr. And Mrs John and Judy Smith works, IMO

it would be horribly incorrect to refer to herself as her fiance's wife in the invitation.

how you put the parents names or address the envelopes should be determined by how formal your wedding is. if you are going formal all the way, with engraved invitations and all, you should follow etiquette. with formal you dont pick and choose.

if you arent that formal jane and john smith is just fine.

I feel that I have to pick and choose. In this case, the formal etiquette is downright rude. Not to mention that my mother is actually my parent, and she married her husband while I was in college. To list his name and not hers would, in my mind, remove the honor of listing her as my parent.

Edit: Maybe I'm just being a raving feminist on this one, but it's one of those few conventions that actually has always bothered me.

I'm not. However, since our parents are contributing, their names are going to be listed, and they're already married. =)

We'll be listed just under our full names.

The wording is something like this:

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
and
Mr. and Mrs. Jack and Jill Doe
invite you to be a part of
the marriage of their children
Cindy Lue Smith and Brian George Doe
at [Location]
on [Date] at [Time]

Sorry if that was confusing.



But like I said, I don't like that convention. I think it is rude to the woman in the relationship to act as if she somehow took on her husband's full name when she actually didn't.

That is what ettiquette says, but I don't like it, so I'm trying to figure out the most formal way to change it.
Ever think of hypaniating it as Ms. Judy Smith-Jones

I feel that I have to pick and choose. In this case, the formal etiquette is downright rude. Not to mention that my mother is actually my parent, and she married her husband while I was in college. To list his name and not hers would, in my mind, remove the honor of listing her as my parent.

why list him then?

if your father is alive, and attending, wouldn't you list "mr. (insert name of father) and Mrs. (insert name of mother)" invite you etc etc

you're not your stepfather's child....personally I wouldn't list him as being the father of you when you aren't, in the framework you have it.

I feel that I have to pick and choose. In this case, the formal etiquette is downright rude. Not to mention that my mother is actually my parent, and she married her husband while I was in college. To list his name and not hers would, in my mind, remove the honor of listing her as my parent.

modern life is a minefield.

is your father involved in your wedding at all? why include this new stepfather at all? mrs jane smith and mr john jones request your presence would be fine as would mrs jane smith by herself

run it past her before you send it off to the printers


when is the wedding?

Ever think of hypaniating it as Ms. Judy Smith-Jones

Thought about it, but I don't like it. I'm just taking on his name. It's easier, it sounds better to me, and it doesn't make it look like I couldn't make up my mind on whether or not to take his name.


why list him then?

He and my mother share assets and decided together to help pay for the wedding. It would also hurt her feelings to leave him out.

Don't get me wrong, I love my stepfather to death, but I also want to make sure to honor her more, as she is the parent who truly raised me.

if your father is alive, and attending, wouldn't you list "mr. (insert name of father) and Mrs. (insert name of mother)" invite you etc etc

My father is attending, but playing no part in planning or paying for the wedding. It wouldn't make any sense to list him as inviting others to a gathering he has no hand in other than attendance.


modern life is a minefield.

hehe. Yeah, I'm trying to do things "right", but keep from offending anyone in my family (or his). It's a bit difficult.

is your father involved in your wedding at all?

He's attending. He gets the father-bride dance. But that's about it. I'm actually having my mother give me away.

why include this new stepfather at all? mrs jane smith and mr john jones request your presence would be fine as would mrs jane smith by herself

They are a couple. They both agreed to help pay for the wedding. My mother is more involved in the planning part of it, but that would probably be true even if my stepfather were my biological father.

And, it would probably hurt her feelings and possibly his for me *not* to include him. When I graduated from college, they both attended and were listed together as my parents. He was beaming almost as much as she was.

run it past her before you send it off to the printers

Oh, I will. =)

when is the wedding?

Late April. I'm actually a bit behind - I really need to get the order in.

way too much thinking here.... put this much effort into learning how to keep the man happy instead of finding problems where there are none.

and NS isnt going to give you the advice that will make the marriage last- it will give you a problem and blame it on George Bush and Christians.

So-figure it out on your own or learn to do without.

i think name changing conventions for marriage are silly and outdated.

but at this point you don't need to worry about that. wedding invitations should generally have your unmarried names on them as you cannot claim the married name until after the union has occurred.

This is yet another reason why I plan to avoid marriage at all costs. :D

This is yet another reason why I plan to avoid marriage at all costs. :D

There's not gonna be a Mrs. Czardas? And little Czardas Jr.s?



Awwwwww

I look forward to seeing triple barreled names, or even better if 2 double barrels get married and it is quadruple.

I have never seen it and i can't wait to laugh at the fools.

This is yet another reason why I plan to avoid marriage at all costs.:D
Don't want to take your wifes name aye? :D

Late April. I'm actually a bit behind - I really need to get the order in.

yeah you do. how very exciting.

are you having a traditional church wedding? what kind of dress will you be wearing? have you picked out the tuxedos yet? how many attendants are you having? are you making them wear ugly pink poofy dresses?

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

To my uneducated, non-native speaker, unmarried ears the first sounds best.

The second one, to me, sounds as if the man's last name were John.

The third's just awkward.

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?
Big, definite no.


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname?
Yet another 'no'. I mean, if you have a horrible last name and manage to find a partner with a better one, I can see how you'll jump at the opportunity, and I'm fine with you doing that (and that goes for men and women alike).
Doing it for 'tradition's sake' or whatever I can't understand these days.

Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us.
What are you referring to? I'm a child from a mixed-name married couple, and I personally have never had a single problem. It's more my mother who has to put up with the occasional "Oh, hello Mrs. [insert daddy's last name]", and there's those people calling our home who'll say "Sorry, wrong number" and hang up when the person with the last name different from the one of the person they've tried to call answers the phone. But these are problems the couple, not the kids face when going mixed.

I don't like that tradition either, so I would call them

Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith



If I get married, it would be cool to combine my surname and her surname into a new one.

NO DONT! for the love of god I work with someone that did that and its the most annoying thing in the planet. And mean to people who when tired get a touch dislexic

They made their name to JoanWane and WaneJoan ... and when you are tired it is SO easy to say the wrong one

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith


It lets you know that they are married rather then relatives of another sort and sounds the best.

yeah you do. how very exciting.

=)

are you having a traditional church wedding? what kind of dress will you be wearing? have you picked out the tuxedos yet? how many attendants are you having? are you making them wear ugly pink poofy dresses?

We are having a garden wedding, with the reception at the same location as the wedding. We are having a pastor preside at the wedding.

I'm wearing a very traditional white satin dress with beaded lace. My aunt actually made it for me (she's absolutely wonderful).

We have 12 attendents total (the flowergirls do count as attendents, right?). 5 Bridesmaids, 5 Groomsmen, and 2 flowergirls.

We have picked out the tuxes. They're black tuxes and the groomsmen will be wearing vests and ties that match the color of the bridesmaid's dresses. My fiance will have a black vest and tie, but the rest of the tux will be the same as the groomsmen.

No ugly pink and poofy dresses. The dresses are actually these: http://www.watters.com/product.php?coll=wtoo&showid=4
although that picture doesn't do them justice. They're in a color called powder blue that is actually more of a periwinkle color. =)


What are you referring to? I'm a child from a mixed-name married couple, and I personally have never had a single problem. It's more my mother who has to put up with the occasional "Oh, hello Mrs. [insert daddy's last name]", and there's those people calling our home who'll say "Sorry, wrong number" and hang up when the person with the last name different from the one of the person they've tried to call answers the phone. But these are problems the couple, not the kids face when going mixed.

I've seen children who had problems with being called different last names as well, or who wanted the surname they weren't given. It just seems that, with the extended family that includes children, there is more issue with people getting names wrong. There's also the question of what to do with the children's names when they are born. Give them his last name? Hers? Hyphenate? The whole process just seems easier if they all have the same name (whatever it is). My fiance and I briefly discussed him taking my name, or choosing a different name altogether, but both having his name seemed better overall.

I would lose the honorifcs and go with "Judy and John Smith."

Seconded. No need to be overly formal here.

As for taking the name, I think it's nice to have one name for the couple, so that any children would have the same name as both parents. Somebody suggested keeping the name would come in handy in case of a divorce, but seriously, you don't want to plan for that when you get married, do you?

I, personally, would try to convince my hypothetical fiancée to take my name, just 'cause I'm the only male in my family. I'd find it depressing if my name died with me :/

I just got married, and a lot of our wedding gifts came addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." A few went to "John and Judy Smith." I frankly don't like to get caught up in formalities like that, but frankly, she addresses the envelopes most of the time anyway, so she can put whatever the hell she wants as long as the address is correct. As for how people refer to us...well, I have bigger things to worry about.

My wife uses my last name. She really had three options, and that was to use my last name, use her last name, or hyphenate. I asked her not to hyphenate, though the other two choices were OK by me. I also let her know that my last name was staying put. She was quite happy to use my last name, though some of my family seemed a little surprised that she would do that, as if eight out of ten brides don't take their husbands' last names (if I am not mistaken, that's the statistic.)

As for the whole convention of it...I can't think of a better system. I can think of some that might work just as well, but the chips fell as they did, and frankly, if everyone hyphenated, pretty soon we're looking at John and Jane Smith-Jones-Rumsfeld-Smithers-Burns-Simpson-Griffin-Smunkee-Fathead-Truman-Batman-Richie-Hilton-Goodfellas-Van Noose-Warhammer-Cheezburger-Alfenheimenleipzig-Hohenzollern. I'll stick to my own last name, thank you very much.

=)



We are having a garden wedding, with the reception at the same location as the wedding. We are having a pastor preside at the wedding.

I'm wearing a very traditional white satin dress with beaded lace. My aunt actually made it for me (she's absolutely wonderful).

We have 12 attendents total (the flowergirls do count as attendents, right?). 5 Bridesmaids, 5 Groomsmen, and 2 flowergirls.

We have picked out the tuxes. They're black tuxes and the groomsmen will be wearing vests and ties that match the color of the bridesmaid's dresses. My fiance will have a black vest and tie, but the rest of the tux will be the same as the groomsmen.

No ugly pink and poofy dresses. The dresses are actually these: http://www.watters.com/product.php?coll=wtoo&showid=4
although that picture doesn't do them justice. They're in a color called powder blue that is actually more of a periwinkle color. =)

very nice! im not sure its legal if the bridesmaids arent wearing dresses with poofy sleeves though...



I've seen children who had problems with being called different last names as well, or who wanted the surname they weren't given. It just seems that, with the extended family that includes children, there is more issue with people getting names wrong. There's also the question of what to do with the children's names when they are born. Give them his last name? Hers? Hyphenate? The whole process just seems easier if they all have the same name (whatever it is). My fiance and I briefly discussed him taking my name, or choosing a different name altogether, but both having his name seemed better overall.

its not really a problem. part of todays complicated world is having kids with different last names from other people in their family. blended families, divorce and remarriage, different naming patterns from different cultures all mean that your kids will be with kids who have different names from at least one of their parents. they can deal with it.

of course my elderly aunt DID insist that my son must be a bastard child because i could not possibly be married if i didnt take my husbands name...

I just got married, and a lot of our wedding gifts came addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith." A few went to "John and Judy Smith." I frankly don't like to get caught up in formalities like that, but frankly, she addresses the envelopes most of the time anyway, so she can put whatever the hell she wants as long as the address is correct. As for how people refer to us...well, I have bigger things to worry about.

My wife uses my last name. She really had three options, and that was to use my last name, use her last name, or hyphenate. I asked her not to hyphenate, though the other two choices were OK by me. I also let her know that my last name was staying put. She was quite happy to use my last name, though some of my family seemed a little surprised that she would do that, as if eight out of ten brides don't take their husbands' last names (if I am not mistaken, that's the statistic.)

As for the whole convention of it...I can't think of a better system. I can think of some that might work just as well, but the chips fell as they did, and frankly, if everyone hyphenated, pretty soon we're looking at John and Jane Smith-Jones-Rumsfeld-Smithers-Burns-Simpson-Griffin-Smunkee-Fathead-Truman-Batman-Richie-Hilton-Goodfellas-Van Noose-Warhammer-Cheezburger-Alfenheimenleipzig-Hohenzollern. I'll stick to my own last name, thank you very much.


i dont think anyone should hyphenate unless they are from a very famous upperclass family or are of spanish heritage (which is not really hyphenating but is similar). as you say, sooner or later some of that hyphenated stuff has to be dropped.

very nice! im not sure its legal if the bridesmaids arent wearing dresses with poofy sleeves though...

LOL

Looking through the catalogues, my fiance once asked, "Do all women secretly hate each other?" =)

its not really a problem. part of todays complicated world is having kids with different last names from other people in their family. blended families, divorce and remarriage, different naming patterns from different cultures all mean that your kids will be with kids who have different names from at least one of their parents. they can deal with it.

I don't think it would be a huge problem - more of an inconvenience, I suppose. It just happens to be an inconvenience I can easily do away with. I'm not particularly bound to my surname. The biggest reason I considered keeping it is that I have published under it. But then again, I've known plenty of women who changed their names after being published and it hasn't affected their careers any.

of course my elderly aunt DID insist that my son must be a bastard child because i could not possibly be married if i didnt take my husbands name...

????? Now, that's ridiculous.

Then again, my fiance's mother did tell me how scandalized some of her family was that we aren't getting married in a church and was shocked to hear that we are considering a female pastor to preside. Some people are overly stuck on tradition.

i dont think anyone should hyphenate unless they are from a very famous upperclass family or are of spanish heritage (which is not really hyphenating but is similar). as you say, sooner or later some of that hyphenated stuff has to be dropped.

The Spanish might sort of have the right thing going on - when you're unm,arried, you use your mother's last name as a secondary name and your father's last name as your own. When you marry, you use the wife's last name as a secondary name and the husband's as your own. It's still a bit male-centric but not to the same degree.

That said, hyphenating last names, especially making kids use a hyphenated last name, is just plain insane. Pick a name and use it.

LOL

Looking through the catalogues, my fiance once asked, "Do all women secretly hate each other?" =)


as well he might!


I don't think it would be a huge problem - more of an inconvenience, I suppose. It just happens to be an inconvenience I can easily do away with. I'm not particularly bound to my surname. The biggest reason I considered keeping it is that I have published under it. But then again, I've known plenty of women who changed their names after being published and it hasn't affected their careers any.


its a good time to change your name, later you would have much more published under your current name and it might turn out to be an annoyance. now you are at the start of your career and will be publishing more important papers later anyway.


????? Now, that's ridiculous.

Then again, my fiance's mother did tell me how scandalized some of her family was that we aren't getting married in a church and was shocked to hear that we are considering a female pastor to preside. Some people are overly stuck on tradition.


she was old, i didnt hold it against her. i think she also snuck my son (as a small baby) over to the sink and baptised him. she certainly never brought the subject up again after he got older.

wedddings make people nutz. you have to put your foot down to keep tradition from spoiling your day.

John and Judy Smith

no need for the Mr. and Mrs.

although etiquette is ladies first

so Judy and John Smith.

I took my husband's last name because it's like 30 million times better than my adopted name, although we could have both taken it or my original last name, but it would have made his initials all weird, and besides, I like his last name, it's pretty cool and it sounds regal, whereas both of my other options were......not great.

My kids have our last name, but I wouldn't fault them for changing it if they saw a need, since you really should be able to choose your own name, it's pretty personal, and your parents really don't know you well enough at birth to name you appropriately *still angsty about her first and middle names*

I've seen children who had problems with being called different last names as well, or who wanted the surname they weren't given. It just seems that, with the extended family that includes children, there is more issue with people getting names wrong.
Hmm. Don't get me wrong, I am no way dobting your experience, but that seems strange to me (unless the parents are the famous kind where you always get associated with them..).
As long as you are relatively young, no one will address you by your last name anyway, and for formal/legal/.. things this will not be an issue, because people tend to go with the record/passport/the parents' and/or legal guardian's word/.. on those things.
Once you reach an age where your last name becomes an issue insofar as that it's not only there to be put on forms by you or your parents (that is, people who'll not confuse them- hopefully), but people actually use it to address you, they either know you long/well enough to know, or don't associate you with your parents (enough) to go with their name- again, unless they are of the 'important' kind.

I honestly can't think of a single occasion that does not include such things as "Oh, she's the daughter of that politician/actor/important business man/.." where I, or anybody else, would assume a person's last name on the basis of their parents' name(s).

There's also the question of what to do with the children's names when they are born. Give them his last name? Hers? Hyphenate?
I'm an only child, and have been given my mother's name. As far as I know, boys would have been given my faher's last name if custody rights had been split (for some reasons custody had been my mother's only my first few years). Whether you go gender-oriented like that, or decide on the case-to-case basis of which one goes better with the first name you choose, or just decide on one to be 'the kids' name', don't decide to hyphenate. That's just..wrong.

Oh, and btw, don't take anything I say as "OMG WTF you better do as I say!" I'm just saying what I personally think about the issue, in a "what would I do?" kind of way rather than in a "I think this is how you should do it" kinda way.


I'll stick to my own last name, thank you very much.

My feelings exactly, and I don't get how people think this should be different for soeone just becaus ethey happen to be female.

Females are just as prone to be sad to see their last name die out/become less frequent.
Females have just as much bother with changing signatures, becoming used to being addressed by a different name, introduce themselves with a new name, ...

No ugly pink and poofy dresses. The dresses are actually these: http://www.watters.com/product.php?coll=wtoo&showid=4
although that picture doesn't do them justice. They're in a color called powder blue that is actually more of a periwinkle color. =)



Ooh, nice. That dress even looks like it would be flattering on people with a variety of colorations and body types. Your bridesmaids must love you. :)

I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.
Because etiquette precludes such an option.
And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname?
I never understood why any woman would do that. It's not like she's losing her identity when she marries.

I never understood why any woman would do that. It's not like she's losing her identity when she marries.

the core of my being is not tied to those words I write on paper when I am signing something, it's a good thing too, because I really really really have had times where I hated my name.

I never understood why any woman would do that. It's not like she's losing her identity when she marries.

Okay, then how's about some men start taking their wives' names?

I honestly can't think of a single occasion that does not include such things as "Oh, she's the daughter of that politician/actor/important business man/.." where I, or anybody else, would assume a person's last name on the basis of their parents' name(s).

The kid I had in mind was actually the son of a teacher. In the end, he ended up going by her last name even though it was not officially his. When he turned 18, he legally changed it. His case was one in which his mother had remarried and changed her name, but he preferred his stepfather over his biological father.

In the end, I figure naming conventions have to fall by the wayside when someone feels very strongly about their name. I don't, so I'm going more for convenience and sound.

My feelings exactly, and I don't get how people think this should be different for soeone just becaus ethey happen to be female.

Females are just as prone to be sad to see their last name die out/become less frequent.
Females have just as much bother with changing signatures, becoming used to being addressed by a different name, introduce themselves with a new name, ...

Indeed. This is why my fiance and I also discussed him taking my name, or even changing both of our names to something different. In the end, we - well, I, he didn't really care - decided on the more traditional route for a number of reasons, and the fact that it was traditional factored in only a little.


Ooh, nice. That dress even looks like it would be flattering on people with a variety of colorations and body types. Your bridesmaids must love you.

My bridesmaids range from 5'1" to 5'11" and from size 6 to size 22, so I either wanted to find something that would look good on everyone or go with a color and let them choose their own. We actually found a flattering style, so we went with that.

And I hope they love me. I'll be putting them to work in the next couple of months. =)


Because etiquette precludes such an option.

So etiquette demands that, if she does change her surname to her husband's, she loses her own identity (unless, of course, she is a doctor)?

I never understood why any woman would do that. It's not like she's losing her identity when she marries.

I don't feel that my identity is that closely tied to my surname. Maybe it's because I'm closer to my mother's family, but I really don't feel that I need to keep my own name. While we wouldn't be any less dedicated with different names, I kind of like the idea of having a single name for our part of the family.

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

In a word (as quoted from Fiddler on the Roof): Tradition!

There's not gonna be a Mrs. Czardas? And little Czardas Jr.s?

Come on. More insane sociopaths who are going to try to take over the world? I don't need them threatening my power as soon as they turn twenty and can raise an army from the dispossessed workers/Legions of Terror/androids/AI!

My kids have our last name, but I wouldn't fault them for changing it if they saw a need, since you really should be able to choose your own name, it's pretty personal, and your parents really don't know you well enough at birth to name you appropriately *still angsty about her first and middle names*
exactly, as soon as I turn 18 I'm going to change my name to Tau-Sh'in i-Vhukazad Arienn or something similar, I'm growing very bored with my real name, and it doesn't fit at all if you want to become supreme ruler of the multiverse.

So etiquette demands that, if she does change her surname to her husband's, she loses her own identity (unless, of course, she is a doctor)?

I think maybe (I have no source so don't ask for one) that it ties into that whole Bible thingy where two become one. I have no problem with people addressing things or mentioning me and hubby as Mr. and Mrs. <husband's name>, in fact it's fine with me, I don't feel like it means I am less important or anything, but then again I do have a "non-traditional traditional" setup around here with my man.

Okay, then how's about some men start taking their wives' names?
Same reasonaing applies. I don't see why they'd want to.

There's also no reason why they need to share a surname.

So etiquette demands that, if she does change her surname to her husband's, she loses her own identity (unless, of course, she is a doctor)?
Yes.

Its your wedding, do it whatever way you want.

Unless you´re a british prince or something.

I think maybe (I have no source so don't ask for one) that it ties into that whole Bible thingy where two become one. I have no problem with people addressing things or mentioning me and hubby as Mr. and Mrs. <husband's name>, in fact it's fine with me, I don't feel like it means I am less important or anything, but then again I do have a "non-traditional traditional" setup around here with my man.

I guess it is a bit odd that I don't mind taking my husband's last name to make us "one family", as it were, but I would mind being referred to by his first name.

I guess I just think the two becoming one thing isn't supposed to strip you of your own identity. You become a married couple, but not a single person.


So etiquette demands that, if she does change her surname to her husband's, she loses her own identity (unless, of course, she is a doctor)?
Yes.

Sounds to me like etiquette needs to be changed, then.

Yes.

then, frankly, fuck etiquette

In the end, I figure naming conventions have to fall by the wayside when someone feels very strongly about their name. I don't, so I'm going more for convenience and sound.
Rightly so, I feel those are the only reasons concerning the decision- I consider both the 'political' and the 'tradition' reasons (taken on a certain name because "it's the 'feminist'/traditional thing to do") to be rather inappropriate.

[..] I[..] decided on the more traditional route for a number of reasons, and the fact that it was traditional factored in only a little.
I wouldn't have expected anything else from you :] And as I said above, I'd have considered keeping your name on the grounds of 'principles' rather silly.

I guess it is a bit odd that I don't mind taking my husband's last name to make us "one family", as it were, but I would mind being referred to by his first name.

I guess I just think the two becoming one thing isn't supposed to strip you of your own identity. You become a married couple, but not a single person.


I don't really feel as if I have lost anything when referred to as Mr. and Mrs. <Husband's name>

in fact, most often we are referred to as "The <surname>s" so it's even more of a unity thing, not only am I tied to hubby, but the kids are stuck with us too.

I am still very much an individual, no matter what someone writes on an envelope or says when referring to us corporately.

Sounds to me like etiquette needs to be changed, then.

then, frankly, fuck etiquette

:eek: Are you two mad? Change this time-honored, sacred custom? Think of the children! Why, the next thing we know, you'll be allowing queers and dykes to actually marry and then what? Mr. and Mr. Barry-Jason Smith-Jones? Ms. and Ms. ... aaaiiee!

:p

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


Yes. Most people get those things and just go "not another wedding!" anyway.

However, maybe if all these appurtenances to marriage are such a big deal for your principles, maybe you should rethink tying the know in the first place.

dem- this might be semi-helpful

http://www.southworth.com/page.php?id=127

I didn't have wedding invites since I eloped so I guess I skipped all this....

I don't really feel as if I have lost anything when referred to as Mr. and Mrs. <Husband's name>

in fact, most often we are referred to as "The <surname>s" so it's even more of a unity thing, not only am I tied to hubby, but the kids are stuck with us too.

I am still very much an individual, no matter what someone writes on an envelope or says when referring to us corporately.

See, I have no problem with referring to a family as "the Smiths" or whatever. In fact, like you said, there is a bond being expressed there.

I think the difference is that, if they refer to you as "the Smiths" or "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," they are equally including both members of the couple (and the kids, in the former case). On the other hand, if they say, "Mr. and Mrs. Bill Smith," they are referring to Bill Smith and that woman who happens to be married to him. It's as if only his actual identity matters, and she's just an afterthought.

I find it interesting that if the man is a doctor, etiquette calls for "Dr. and Mrs. John Smith." However, if the woman is a Dr., it is "Dr. Jane Smith and Mr. John Smith." According to official etiquette, the man's given name is always listed, while the woman's is listed only if she is especially distinguished or has chosen not to take his surname.

Of course, what is an is not accepted in these matters will change quite a bit in the coming years, I think. Many websites are already beginning to list etiquette for same-sex couples, and I think we will eventually have a convention that takes in everyone. I'm just trying to figure out what to do in the meantime. =)

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

stop worrying what other people think... you are the one getting married not them and no matter what you do someone will be pissed off, so do want you want......

names......I use my name and my wife uses her maiden name, we don't care what our families think.....

Yes. Most people get those things and just go "not another wedding!" anyway.

However, maybe if all these appurtenances to marriage are such a big deal for your principles, maybe you should rethink tying the know in the first place.

I should rethink getting married because I don't want to refer to women in a married couple as if they are simply an afterthought - as if their husbands are the more important members of the couple?

Being married certainly doesn't require that you do that, does it?

dem- this might be semi-helpful

http://www.southworth.com/page.php?id=127

I didn't have wedding invites since I eloped so I guess I skipped all this....

Thanks. I've been through several sites like this. I'm kind of picking and choosing from different ones as I go. =)

Yes. Most people get those things and just go "not another wedding!" anyway.

However, maybe if all these appurtenances to marriage are such a big deal for your principles, maybe you should rethink tying the know in the first place.

or maybe, juuuuuuust maybe, she should get married for the reasons she, and her fiance want, and screw the rest?

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?

Meh. If a woman is prepared to change her title AND her surname when she marries, I have a very hard time taking her seriously if she claims to be bothered that people change the name in between.


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.
I am turned off by anybody taking anybody else's name when they marry. I wouldn't take anybody else's if I marry, and I wouldn't marry anybody who would take mine.

I might be willing to consider selecting a shared family surname in the event that my (hypothetical) spouse and I decided to have children, purely for the sake of simplicity, but I would only do so because my culture happens to be deeply stupid when it comes to dealing with individual names and I wouldn't want to burden my (hypothetical) kids with other people's stupidities.

I should rethink getting married because I don't want to refer to women in a married couple as if they are simply an afterthought - as if their husbands are the more important members of the couple?

Being married certainly doesn't require that you do that, does it?

No, but it requires that you put up with other people refering to you as if you are an afterthought (particularly since you mention that your inlaws are "conservative"). It also requires that you face that face that American (and generally Western) cultural traditions view married women this way, and if you want to do the "traditional" thing then that's what you're going to have to do. It sucks, but them's the breaks.

Of course, you're a big girl, and if you've decided to get married then I'm sure you are prepared to deal with that. :D

Sounds to me like etiquette needs to be changed, then.

Well, perhaps, but you did ask.

What are you referring to? I'm a child from a mixed-name married couple, and I personally have never had a single problem. It's more my mother who has to put up with the occasional "Oh, hello Mrs. [insert daddy's last name]", and there's those people calling our home who'll say "Sorry, wrong number" and hang up when the person with the last name different from the one of the person they've tried to call answers the phone. But these are problems the couple, not the kids face when going mixed.
My family always found this kind of handy. We knew that somebody was calling to sell us something when they asked for "Mr. or Mrs. [Dad's Name]," so we could just hang up on them right away. We also always knew which mail was junk and could be thrown out without openning it. A real time-saver!

The only problem I've ever had with my name ([Dad's Name]-[Mom's Name]) was spelling it to people, but I have to do that with my first name anyhow so it's not really much additional bother. Though I was a little bit surprised when I went to get my driver's permit (at age 15) and the guy behind the counter asked me, "Aren't you a bit young to be married?"

I also find that my name is a great asshole detector. I've encountered some people who make a big deal out of my name, and even a few guys who decided I must be a "ball-buster" or a "bitch" because of it, and it's very handy to have assholes like these point themselves out for me. Again, a real time-saver. :D

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.


How 'bout Mr and Mrs Smith? :confused:

I've been thinking about that second name issue a lot recently... I'd like to keep mine, but I'm not sure if that would be possible in Ireland. I'm not sure he'd like to take mine, though, as it's a bit awkward in English-speaking countries (it's a very German name). I haven't made up my mind yet, but giving up my name seem soemhow wrong.

And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.

It makes sense for couples to have the same surname, or you could end up with quadruple-barrelled names!
If I ever get married, I might keep my surname, though (and get my husband to take it) because there are only 7 of us left in the UK (don't know about abroad), and no males under 40. The only reason it's the man's surname is because the convention was introduced so long ago.

I've been thinking about that second name issue a lot recently... I'd like to keep mine, but I'm not sure if that would be possible in Ireland.

Whoa, do you mean it's not legal for a woman to keep her own name after marrying in Ireland?!


I'm not sure he'd like to take mine, though, as it's a bit awkward in English-speaking countries (it's a very German name). I haven't made up my mind yet, but giving up my name seem soemhow wrong.
Nobody has to take anybody's name, remember! You can both keep your own. I promise, this really does work; my parents did it over 30 years ago when they got married and they're still going strong. :D

Whoa, do you mean it's not legal for a woman to keep her own name after marrying in Ireland?!

Nobody has to take anybody's name, remember! You can both keep your own. I promise, this really does work; my parents did it over 30 years ago when they got married and they're still going strong. :D

I'm not sure if it is. The legislation that both partners have to have the same name (be it the woman's, the man's, or a double name) was only changed a few years ago in Germany, I'm not sure what it is here. I'll have to investigate ;)

I'm not sure if it is. The legislation that both partners have to have the same name (be it the woman's, the man's, or a double name) was only changed a few years ago in Germany, I'm not sure what it is here. I'll have to investigate ;)
Wow, that's a very intrusive law. Though I suppose it must make things easier for the bureaucracy, and lord knows they're the ones I worry about the most...:P

Dump the honorifcs as we did for our invitations.


John and Judy Smith
and
Jack and Jill Doe
invite you to be a part of
the marriage of their children
Cindy Lue Smith and Brian George Doe
at [Location]
on [Date] at [Time]

My husband is Chilean, and they do not have the tradition of the wife taking the husband's name, which is great for me, because I never planned on changing my name anyway. The kids have his last name, that I'm fine with.

Meh. If a woman is prepared to change her title AND her surname when she marries, I have a very hard time taking her seriously if she claims to be bothered that people change the name in between.

Why? The title is specifically related to whether or not you are married. I suppose I could still try to go by "Miss," but it would be horribly confusing to most people. And the surname is a family name - in my case, one of a family I have very little contact with anyways. My mother, my close aunts and uncles, my cousins, etc. all have different surnames. My brother, has the same surname as me, as do my father and grandmother, but that's really about it for family I regularly keep in touch with.

And, by choosing to spend my life with my fiance, I am joining his family (and he is joining mine). I see no reason that there is something inherently wrong with changing my name to reflect that (or him changing his, if that is how it had turned out).

However, my first name is not there to tie me to a given family - or to tie me to others at all. It is *my* name - my given name. It isn't changing when I marry. The people I interact with will still refer to me by that name, just as they will still refer to my fiance by his. Why, then, should we both be referred to under one first name when we are addressed as a couple?

Likewise, when my mother or my fiance's mother got married, their first names didn't change. They chose to change their surnames, but they didn't give up or lose their individuality at all.

I am turned off by anybody taking anybody else's name when they marry. I wouldn't take anybody else's if I marry, and I wouldn't marry anybody who would take mine.

Why? I understand if you wish to keep your own name, and I would say you absolutely should. But if your significant other wished to share your name, wh would you have a problem with it?

I might be willing to consider selecting a shared family surname in the event that my (hypothetical) spouse and I decided to have children, purely for the sake of simplicity, but I would only do so because my culture happens to be deeply stupid when it comes to dealing with individual names and I wouldn't want to burden my (hypothetical) kids with other people's stupidities.

A surname isn't an individual name. It is meant to reflect familial ties, and it could not do so if everyone in a family had a different surname. If surnames were not meant to reflect familial ties, we wouldn't have any use for them at all. We would all name our children with no regard whatsoever to our own names (unless we wanted a "jr"). John Smith and Judy Jackson would name their children Suzy Stanton and Brian Green, if they used more than one name at all.

Of course, even your own parents carried their own surnames over to their children. It was unconventional, but they still chose to reflect those familial ties by hyphenating your name with each of their surnames. You obviously feel very strongly that you should keep that name, so it would seem that you do hold to the purpose of a surname after all.

No, but it requires that you put up with other people refering to you as if you are an afterthought (particularly since you mention that your inlaws are "conservative").

No, it doesn't. I don't have to "put up with" anyone treating me as anything other than I wish to be treated.

And while my in-laws have very conservative viewpoints on many things, the idea of the quiet little woman is most definitely not one of them. They never would have liked me if it was. In truth, the women in the family are usually much more outspoken and visible than the men.

It also requires that you face that face that American (and generally Western) cultural traditions view married women this way, and if you want to do the "traditional" thing then that's what you're going to have to do. It sucks, but them's the breaks.

I don't care for tradition except where I like it. And while I certainly realize that older cultural traditions (and even some people today) view married women this way, that doesn't mean that I have to like it or to pander to it.

How 'bout Mr and Mrs Smith?

That just seems less personal. After all, there are plenty of Mr. Smiths and Mrs. Smiths around (and the same goes for both actual surnames). Referring to someone only by your family name is generally something you do when you don't know them very well.

I've been thinking about that second name issue a lot recently... I'd like to keep mine, but I'm not sure if that would be possible in Ireland. I'm not sure he'd like to take mine, though, as it's a bit awkward in English-speaking countries (it's a very German name). I haven't made up my mind yet, but giving up my name seem soemhow wrong.

If you don't want to give up your name, then don't. With me, it was kind of a "meh" issue.

I'm not sure if it is. The legislation that both partners have to have the same name (be it the woman's, the man's, or a double name) was only changed a few years ago in Germany, I'm not sure what it is here. I'll have to investigate

That's......odd.


If I ever get married, I might keep my surname, though (and get my husband to take it) because there are only 7 of us left in the UK (don't know about abroad), and no males under 40. The only reason it's the man's surname is because the convention was introduced so long ago.

Makes sense. If your name is important to you and you want to preserve the "line" as it were, you would definitely want to keep your name.

Dump the honorifcs as we did for our invitations.

I'm considering that. I'm kind of going for a somewhat formal/somewhat informal feel, so leaving them off would probably sound fine.

my wife had a choice- She could marry me and take my name-or not marry me and use whatever name she wants.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith


That's the one I've always seen.

Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith sounds best to me.

Why? The title is specifically related to whether or not you are married. I suppose I could still try to go by "Miss," but it would be horribly confusing to most people. And the surname is a family name - in my case, one of a family I have very little contact with anyways. My mother, my close aunts and uncles, my cousins, etc. all have different surnames. My brother, has the same surname as me, as do my father and grandmother, but that's really about it for family I regularly keep in touch with.

And, by choosing to spend my life with my fiance, I am joining his family (and he is joining mine). I see no reason that there is something inherently wrong with changing my name to reflect that (or him changing his, if that is how it had turned out).

I didn't say there was anything "inherently wrong" with changing your title and your surname. I simply think it's funny when a woman is prepared to change her title and her surname but then is so worried about the name in between.


However, my first name is not there to tie me to a given family - or to tie me to others at all. It is *my* name - my given name.

My WHOLE name is my name. I've worn it for a lifetime, and I've made it my own as much as I've made my first name my own.


It isn't changing when I marry. The people I interact with will still refer to me by that name, just as they will still refer to my fiance by his. Why, then, should we both be referred to under one first name when we are addressed as a couple?

For the same stupid reason why married women are expected to take their husbands' names, and not the reverse. Because that's how our culture rolls.


Likewise, when my mother or my fiance's mother got married, their first names didn't change. They chose to change their surnames, but they didn't give up or lose their individuality at all.

Meh. We're not talking about "giving up one's individuality" here. That's a fuzzy bit of language, really, and impossible to discuss objectively.

We're talking about names. Yours is your business. Keep it or give it away as you see fit. You asked for my opinion, and you've got it. :D


Why? I understand if you wish to keep your own name, and I would say you absolutely should. But if your significant other wished to share your name, wh would you have a problem with it?

I wouldn't marry anybody who believed that they should change their name specifically because they had gotten married, and especially not somebody who believed they should take the name of the person they are marrying. That reflects an attitude toward marriage that I do not share.


A surname isn't an individual name. It is meant to reflect familial ties, and it could not do so if everyone in a family had a different surname. If surnames were not meant to reflect familial ties, we wouldn't have any use for them at all. We would all name our children with no regard whatsoever to our own names (unless we wanted a "jr"). John Smith and Judy Jackson would name their children Suzy Stanton and Brian Green, if they used more than one name at all.

Of course, even your own parents carried their own surnames over to their children. It was unconventional, but they still chose to reflect those familial ties by hyphenating your name with each of their surnames. You obviously feel very strongly that you should keep that name, so it would seem that you do hold to the purpose of a surname after all.

The problem is, even though surnames are supposed to help identify family ties, they actually end up being kind of lousy at doing that.

For one thing, they only reflect your ties to the MALE line of your family, because only male surnames were considered worth preserving. That's a bit of a glaring oversight, in my opinion.

But more importantly, our naming conventions often become a problem when dealing with families that are "non-traditional" in nature. Since the majority of American families are "non-traditional," you can see why this is so goofy.

For instance, children are still typically given the surname of their biological father, even if that individual is not the male who is actually functioning as father to the child. Women still change their names when they marry, even if they have pre-existing children fathered by another man, so you end up with a mother who doesn't have the same surname as her children, and a father who doesn't have the same surname as the children he is rearing, and children who bear the name of the one person who isn't even in the picture at all!



No, it doesn't. I don't have to "put up with" anyone treating me as anything other than I wish to be treated.

Sorry, but you do. (Hell, we all have to put up with being treated other than we might wish on occasion, that's not even unique to married women!) It's going to happen, and it's going to happen in situations where your choices are basically to either swallow it or to make a scene that gets everybody very uncomfortable and ruins what could have been a lovely evening.

My mom talked with me about this a couple of times. I couldn't understand why she didn't just put people in their place about her name and her status, since she's not the sort to meekly bow down before jackasses. But she (rightly) pointed out that there are situations where you just end up having to take one for the team. One of her examples was her great aunt's funeral...it's pretty fucking tacky to make a stink about your name at a wake, and some people will NOT take the hint if you try to politely correct them in a non-attention-grabbing manner.


And while my in-laws have very conservative viewpoints on many things, the idea of the quiet little woman is most definitely not one of them. They never would have liked me if it was. In truth, the women in the family are usually much more outspoken and visible than the men.

They'll refer to you as an afterthought in that they will adhere to the traditional naming assumptions (that you, the woman, will naturally take your man's name when you wed, seeing as how a woman is defined by which male she belongs to). Sorry if that was unclear.


I don't care for tradition except where I like it.

Heh. You and everybody else, I'm sure.


And while I certainly realize that older cultural traditions (and even some people today) view married women this way, that doesn't mean that I have to like it or to pander to it.

I'm not saying you have to LIKE it. I'm saying you need to be prepared for the fact that this is how it IS, whether you like it or not. This is how you WILL be treated and viewed. You can choose how you respond to it, but you can't change the fact that this is part of what you'll have to deal with.

Like I said in my earlier post, I'm sure you're more than equal to the task. ;)

I know this is bordering on grave-digging, but I mentioned this discussion to a relative of mine and she told me some very interesting stuff:

According to correct English usage, "Mrs" is actually only supposed to be used with the husband's full name! It would be "Mrs. John Smith," not "Mrs. Jane Smith."

The alternative that evolved in America was to use Mrs. [Maiden Name] [Married Name]. So Jane Jones marries John Smith, and is then refered to as either Mrs. John Smith or Mrs. Jones Smith.

Either way, the traditional use of "Mrs" never includes the woman's first name.

Also, according to formal etiquette, one would only indicate/separate a couple's first names if the woman uses a surname other than her husbands or if the woman chooses a title OTHER than "Mrs."

For instance, you would say "Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Jane Jones." Or you would say "Mr. John Smith and Ms. Jane Smith." But you would still say "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith," if you were abiding by the rules of etiquette.

I did not know any of this. Happily, I have several relations who do know such things, as well as which fork to use on the fish course.

I know this is bordering on grave-digging, but I mentioned this discussion to a relative of mine and she told me some very interesting stuff:

According to correct English usage, "Mrs" is actually only supposed to be used with the husband's full name! It would be "Mrs. John Smith," not "Mrs. Jane Smith."

On wikipedia, it says that it started out that way, but is now often used with the woman's full name instead.

In the end, though, I ended up dropping the honorifics altogether and going with a less formal invitation:

John and Jane Doe
and
Jack and Jill Smith
invite you to share in the joy of
the marriage of their children
Sue Ann Stanton
and
Brian George Smith
......

My mother and I both agreed that the super-formal etiquette sounded too stuffy, especially with me trying to include both names and both honorifics.

On wikipedia, it says that it started out that way, but is now often used with the woman's full name instead.

Yeah, I had no idea that the "official" usage worked that way. Where I've lived, it's usually "Mrs. Jane Smith" (assuming Smith is the husband's surname). I just thought it was interesting to find out about the way we are all "supposed" to be using these titles. :D


In the end, though, I ended up dropping the honorifics altogether and going with a less formal invitation:

......

My mother and I both agreed that the super-formal etiquette sounded too stuffy, especially with me trying to include both names and both honorifics.Yeah, that looks perfectly fine. I think it's also going to be easier for most people to understand, since a lot of us are (frankly) bamboozled by correct etiquette.

Yeah, that looks perfectly fine. I think it's also going to be easier for most people to understand, since a lot of us are (frankly) bamboozled by correct etiquette.

I've never been bamboozled by correct etiquette, but I was nearly hoodwinked,once.

On wikipedia, it says that it started out that way, but is now often used with the woman's full name instead.

In the end, though, I ended up dropping the honorifics altogether and going with a less formal invitation:

John and Jane Doe
and
Jack and Jill Smith
invite you to share in the joy of
the marriage of their children
Sue Ann Stanton
and
Brian George Smith
......

My mother and I both agreed that the super-formal etiquette sounded too stuffy, especially with me trying to include both names and both honorifics.

I think that sounds very good. It's clear and clean.

fair enough, if she wants to actually refer to herself as Mrs in the invitation I personally prefer:

Mr. John and Ms. Judy Smith.

substitute Dr. or other particular title as appropriate, IF she wants to do it that way.

personally I prefer "the wedding of Mr. John Smith and Ms. Judy Doe" as she isn't Judy Smith yet.

She's talking about the OTHER people involved, like her parents, her fiance's parents, and the people she's addressing the invitations to. Sheesh!

my wife had a choice- She could marry me and take my name-or not marry me and use whatever name she wants.

Wow, that's pretty controlling. I would have gone with the latter. :rolleyes:

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?

My opinion, the one that bothers you.

And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname?

That's fine if that is what the woman wants to do. :)

And, by choosing to spend my life with my fiance, I am joining his family (and he is joining mine). I see no reason that there is something inherently wrong with changing my name to reflect that (or him changing his, if that is how it had turned out). A surname isn't an individual name. It is meant to reflect familial ties, and it could not do so if everyone in a family had a different surname. If surnames were not meant to reflect familial ties, we wouldn't have any use for them at all. We would all name our children with no regard whatsoever to our own names (unless we wanted a "jr"). John Smith and Judy Jackson would name their children Suzy Stanton and Brian Green, if they used more than one name at all.

My boyfriend and I have agreed to form a new last name for ourselves when we marry. We have no desire to be affiliated with any of the families we come from. We will create a new and better family.

My boyfriend and I have agreed to form a new last name for ourselves when we marry. We have no desire to be affiliated with any of the families we come from. We will create a new and better family.

Sounds like a plan! =)

Dem,

I would like to thank you for this thread. Though I'm not engaged it, it does give me something to actually talk to my girlfriend about for one day, we will have to do the samething you are doing now.

Dem,

I would like to thank you for this thread. Though I'm not engaged it, it does give me something to actually talk to my girlfriend about for one day, we will have to do the samething you are doing now.

Good luck!

As much as I complain about some of it, I'm actually enjoying the planning. But if you two aren't big planners, definitely go for the elope option. =)

Good luck!

As much as I complain about some of it, I'm actually enjoying the planning. But if you two aren't big planners, definitely go for the elope option. =)

Actually, we're planning on a traditional wedding and I am going to have to convince her to actually have a wedding planner to help save money. Of course, this is not for another 2 years yet but its never to early to begin planning.

And thanks :)

Sounds like a plan! =)

Glad you approve! I was wondering if I would get flames for that.

Wow, that's pretty controlling. I would have gone with the latter. :rolleyes:

Seconded. Any guy who needs to change my name for me is far too insecure for my taste. Insecure guys are so high-maintenance.

Seconded. Any guy who needs to change my name for me is far too insecure for my taste. Insecure guys are so high-maintenance.

Either that or they are traditional where the girl takes on the guy's last name.

Either that or they are traditional where the girl takes on the guy's last name.

Is "traditional" a synonym for "I want things my way, I don't care that you like your own name"?

Either that or they are traditional where the girl takes on the guy's last name.
If a guy thinks that a woman should have to change her name to pamper his love of "tradition," then he's not worth bothering with. He clearly has control issues. It usually turns out that he also love the "tradition" of women doing all the chores around the house, changing all the diapers, and giving all the oral sex. Boooooooooring.

Is "traditional" a synonym for "I want things my way, I don't care that you like your own name"?

:rolleyes:

If a guy thinks that a woman should have to change her name to pamper his love of "tradition," then he's not worth bothering with. He clearly has control issues. It usually turns out that he also love the "tradition" of women doing all the chores around the house, changing all the diapers, and giving all the oral sex. Boooooooooring.

And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname?

That's fine if that is what the woman wants to do.

As I said, it is tradition but it should be the woman's choice as well. My gf as already told me that she is taking my name when we do wound up tying the knot. It is what she wants.

As I said, it is tradition but it should be the woman's choice as well. My gf as already told me that she is taking my name when we do wound up tying the knot. It is what she wants.
That's lovely. It's also not what we were talking about.

We responded to a poster who said that he wouldn't marry a woman if she wanted to keep her own name. That's quite different from saying, "My female companion has chosen to take my name if/when we wed, and I believe that is her choice." Instead, he is saying, "My name! MINE MINE MINE!!!"

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.


Mr. and Mrs. John Smith is about right. Unless you fall under the sway of feminism (I am so antifeminist that I equal feminism to the devil). You could also say John and Judy Smith if you want but I like the traditional approach best. The really important thing is that you take your hubby's name or else people will think that your kids are bastards.

If a woman is so ashamed of a man's name she should marry someone else who did not tarnish his name with notoriety. If you do not take the hubby's name you are distancing yourself from him in a way that says "I am marrying someone notorious and dod not want to be associated with his name."

That's lovely. It's also not what we were talking about.

We responded to a poster who said that he wouldn't marry a woman if she wanted to keep her own name. That's quite different from saying, "My female companion has chosen to take my name if/when we wed, and I believe that is her choice." Instead, he is saying, "My name! MINE MINE MINE!!!"

That person is selfish. It is tradition though for the woman to take on her husband's last name but it should be her choice if she wants to do so and it should never be demanded.

If a guy thinks that a woman should have to change her name to pamper his love of "tradition," then he's not worth bothering with. He clearly has control issues. It usually turns out that he also love the "tradition" of women doing all the chores around the house, changing all the diapers, and giving all the oral sex. Boooooooooring.

Hey even guys like me who think that a woman should pamper my love of tradition, has control issues, and also loves the tradition of women doing all the chores in the house and changing all the diapers, can still give great oral! My wife and girlfriends all say I am the best at oral so meh!

Sorry I had to delete a post due to multiple posting

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith is about right. Unless you fall under the sway of feminism (I am so antifeminist that I equal feminism to the devil). You could also say John and Judy Smith if you want but I like the traditional approach best. The really important thing is that you take your hubby's name or else people will think that your kids are bastards.

Where the hell did the bolded part come from? Because the woman does not take her husband's name, they'll immediately be id as a bastard? What if the woman has a wedding band on her finger? Would they still be labeled as a bastard? No.

If a woman is so ashamed of a man's name she should marry someone else who did not tarnish his name with notoriety. If you do not take the hubby's name you are distancing yourself from him in a way that says "I am marrying someone notorious and dod not want to be associated with his name."

Grow up :rolleyes:

That person is selfish. It is tradition though for the woman to take on her husband's last name but it should be her choice if she wants to do so and it should never be demanded.

Doing something in the name of tradition is not selfish. Defying tradition is simply subversive because it erodes a tradition and traditions are cool. I can think of no better reason for doing something relatively harmless than the fact that it is how it has been done. Call me a steady Eddy but I don't like to rock the boat too much.

Doing something in the name of tradition is not selfish. Defying tradition is simply subversive because it erodes a tradition and traditions are cool. I can think of no better reason for doing something relatively harmless than the fact that it is how it has been done. Call me a steady Eddy but I don't like to rock the boat to much.

Dude... I'm all for tradition but even I do not force it upon the people I love. Hell my gf is planning on being a teacher and she has my fullest support to be a teacher.

Hey even guys like me who think that a woman should pamper my love of tradition, has control issues, and also loves the tradition of women doing all the chores in the house and changing all the diapers, can still give great oral! My wife and girlfriends all say I am the best at oral so meh!
So you seek out women who will clean up after you and pamper your ego, and then you think it actually means something when they tell you you're good in bed? Darling, you've self-selected women who will tell you whatever you want to hear.

So you seek out women who will clean up after you and pamper your ego, and then you think it actually means something when they tell you you're good in bed? Darling, you've self-selected women who will tell you whatever you want to hear.

Agreed.

Doing something in the name of tradition is not selfish. Defying tradition is simply subversive because it erodes a tradition and traditions are cool.

I must invoke the Montoya Principle in regards to your use of "subversive." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

To subvert means to overthrow something established or existing. Practicing an existing tradition is the antithesis of "subversive."

Where the hell did the bolded part come from? Because the woman does not take her husband's name, they'll immediately be id as a bastard? What if the woman has a wedding band on her finger? Would they still be labeled as a bastard? No.



Grow up :rolleyes:

When I see Jone and Jane Smith and a couple of kids with the last name of Smith it all looks kosher. When I see kids with different last names it makes me think of divorce or out of wedlock or something but not the kind of family that I would hold out as ideal. In my book you are either the ideal or a little on the trashy side. Then again I am only moderately more progressive than the Taliban.

When I see Jone and Jane Smith and a couple of kids with the last name of Smith it all looks kosher. When I see kids with different last names it makes me think of divorce or out of wedlock or something but not the kind of family that I would hold out as ideal. In my book you are either the ideal or a little on the trashy side. Then again I am only moderately more progressive than the Taliban.

so I would be considered "trashy" by you because of things my parents did that I had no control over?

that sucks.

I must invoke the Montoya Principle in regards to your use of "subversive." I do not think that word means what you think it means.

To subvert means to overthrow something established or existing. Practicing an existing tradition is the antithesis of "subversive."

We agree. I think you misread what I wrote. I said that defying tradition is subversive because it "overthrows" an existing tradition.

so I would be considered "trashy" by you because of things my parents did that I had no control over?

that sucks.

No. Your parents would be the trashy ones. As it is said in the old testament, "A child's teeth are not set on edge becasue the parents ate unripened grapes."

When I see Jone and Jane Smith and a couple of kids with the last name of Smith it all looks kosher. When I see kids with different last names it makes me think of divorce or out of wedlock or something but not the kind of family that I would hold out as ideal. In my book you are either the ideal or a little on the trashy side. Then again I am only moderately more progressive than the Taliban.
That's got nothing to do with "progressive" or "conservative." It just means that you're pretty much the village gossip. You are titillated by thinking about the naughty things your neighbors are up to, and you are drawn to speculate about the various dramas in other people's lives.

If I were to play armchair shrink I would probably speculate that you do this because, as you say, you are a "steady Eddy." Your own life is formulaic and dull, yet your code of morality teaches that good people must live this way, so you get your thrills by living vicariously through your "sinful" neighbors.

We agree. I think you misread what I wrote. I said that defying tradition is subversive because it "overthrows" an existing tradition.
Ah, you're right, I misread. My bad.

So, I'm trying to order my wedding invitations and there's one problem I'm running into as far as the general ettiquette of wording, specifically how to list our parents' names. I've never liked the convention in which a couple is referred to only by the husband's name.

For instance, Judy and John Smith would be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith. The whole thing simply doesn't make sense to me. She has a name - it is Judy - why shouldn't her name be included? It seems rather insulting to me to act as if the couple becomes one member, rather than both being an equal part.
I can't, however, find any official ettiquette on how to include her name as well. There are all sorts of rules on what to do if their last names are different or if she hyphenated or they're divorced, but no way to include both first names and only one surname.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??

Or, am I just making a big deal out of nothing and I should just go with the general convention that bothers me?


And, on a different note, what does everyone think about the convention of a woman taking her husband's surname? Personally, I've decided to take my fiance's surname when we get married. We do plan on having children, and, from what I've seen in other families, I think having the same surname will be more convenient for us. He could have taken mine, but his sounds better with my first name than the other way around. Not to mention that his rather conservative family would probably be bothered.


You are indeed makeing a big deal out of nowt. Convention? Stick to it if that is your bag, but why should you? Do what you want.

When I see Jone and Jane Smith and a couple of kids with the last name of Smith it all looks kosher. When I see kids with different last names it makes me think of divorce or out of wedlock or something but not the kind of family that I would hold out as ideal. In my book you are either the ideal or a little on the trashy side. Then again I am only moderately more progressive than the Taliban.

As I said. Grow up.

That's got nothing to do with "progressive" or "conservative." It just means that you're pretty much the village gossip. You are titillated by thinking about the naughty things your neighbors are up to, and you are drawn to speculate about the various dramas in other people's lives.

If I were to play armchair shrink I would probably speculate that you do this because, as you say, you are a "steady Eddy." Your own life is formulaic and dull, yet your code of morality teaches that good people must live this way, so you get your thrills by living vicariously through your "sinful" neighbors.

You might have a point. I am not sure that I live vicariously through them as much as I get a sense of superiority from watching their failings. My life is pretty formulaic though. I am pretty much following a plan that I made 14 years ago. I also probably have a fear of spawning that makes me think that breeders are yucky evil reckless people unless it is done within certain narrow parameters and gives the spawned the best chance at a great and healthy life. This probably stems from my inner hatred of child abusers and neglectful parents which fortunately I never had growing up even if my Mom went a little nutty at times. It also might explain, together with the fact that I am a tree hugger, why I am so pro-abortion and so anti-life.

You might have a point. I am not sure that I live vicariously through them as much as I get a sense of superiority from watching their failings. My life is pretty formulaic though. I am pretty much following a plan that I made 14 years ago. I also probably have a fear of spawning that makes me think that breeders are yucky evil reckless people unless it is done within certain narrow parameters and gives the spawned the best chance at a great and healthy life. This probably stems from my inner hatred of child abusers and neglectful parents which fortunately I never had growing up even if my Mom went a little nutty at times. It also might explain, together with the fact that I am a tree hugger, why I am so pro-abortion and so anti-life.
Makes sense to me.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's unusual to enjoy feeling superior to others. I like that feeling. I think we just have different standards about what makes one person "superior" to another. I don't see anything inherently inferior about having babies out of wedlock, since having them within wedlock doesn't seem to do much for a lot of the people I've met.

Getting married doesn't magically make a lousy parent into a good parent. Getting married does not make an irresponsible person into a responsible person. I think the greatest disservice that our culture does to marriage is promoting various myths and misconceptions about how marriage will magically change a person or change a relationship.

Glad you approve! I was wondering if I would get flames for that.

I approve of any couple who, together, decides what to do when they get married, whether it be keeping the names they have, one changing, or both changing (not that my approval should matter, of course =).

The important thing to me is that you find something that works for you. It looks like you have, so it's the best choice to go with.


Mr. and Mrs. John Smith is about right. Unless you fall under the sway of feminism (I am so antifeminist that I equal feminism to the devil).

Oh noes! Evil, evil feminism! How dare I consider both members of a couple equal within that couple!

The really important thing is that you take your hubby's name or else people will think that your kids are bastards.

How interesting. What about a woman who takes her husband's name, has kids, ends up divorced and remarried - again taking her husband's name? She'll have a different surname from her children. Will people then think that they are bastards? :rolleyes:

People like you almost make me want to keep my own name just out of spite.

If a woman is so ashamed of a man's name she should marry someone else who did not tarnish his name with notoriety. If you do not take the hubby's name you are distancing yourself from him in a way that says "I am marrying someone notorious and dod not want to be associated with his name."

What makes you think it has anything to do with being ashamed? Perhaps she is simply proud of her own. Perhaps she is famous in her own right, and changing it would be confusing. Perhaps her husband's last name would sound awful with her first name (think "Julia Gulia" from The Wedding Singer). Perhaps she loves her husband, but doesn't care much for her in-laws and would prefer to continue her association with her birth family.

There are plenty of reasons that a woman might choose to keep her maiden name when she marries, and I highly doubt that the notoriety of her husband's name comes into play in even a tiny percentage of marriages.

Makes sense to me.

For what it's worth, I don't think it's unusual to enjoy feeling superior to others. I like that feeling. I think we just have different standards about what makes one person "superior" to another. I don't see anything inherently inferior about having babies out of wedlock, since having them within wedlock doesn't seem to do much for a lot of the people I've met.

Getting married doesn't magically make a lousy parent into a good parent. Getting married does not make an irresponsible person into a responsible person. I think the greatest disservice that our culture does to marriage is promoting various myths and misconceptions about how marriage will magically change a person or change a relationship.

I have only been married a little over three months but the only change that I have seen with me is financial. Now I am not just referring to more taxes and access to a spouse's benefits, I also mean something hard to explain a certain sense of being two people instead of just one person or better yet one financial entity comprised of two people instead of two financial entities comprised of one person in each entity.

It also might explain, together with the fact that I am a tree hugger, why I am so pro-abortion and so anti-life.

How can one be a tree hugger and hate children? Or hate, period?

I have only been married a little over three months but the only change that I have seen with me is financial. Now I am not just referring to more taxes and access to a spouse's benefits, I also mean something hard to explain a certain sense of being two people instead of just one person or better yet one financial entity comprised of two people instead of two financial entities comprised of one person in each entity.

Heheh I have been married for almost 17 years and I too have noticed this finacial change. Only in my case it was more like being two people but only one finaceal enterty comprised of me! HAhahahahha

How can one be a tree hugger and hate children? Or hate, period?

Because people are overpopulated and are causing unprecedented damage to the environment. If people methodically aborted their pregnancies and only every other couple had a child, we could reverse this problem. Our medicine is extending life and allowing those who should have died young to live to reproduce. I love nature and hope that it will be protected and hate the fact that our species is overpopulated and our numbers are still growing instead of receeding. I hate parents for bringing children into the world faster than our death rate because right now we need a negative growth rate not a positive one.

What makes you think it has anything to do with being ashamed? Perhaps she is simply proud of her own. Perhaps she is famous in her own right, and changing it would be confusing. Perhaps her husband's last name would sound awful with her first name (think "Julia Gulia" from The Wedding Singer). Perhaps she loves her husband, but doesn't care much for her in-laws and would prefer to continue her association with her birth family.

There are plenty of reasons that a woman might choose to keep her maiden name when she marries, and I highly doubt that the notoriety of her husband's name comes into play in even a tiny percentage of marriages.
And maybe she just doesn't feel like it. With guys, we all just kind of assume that of course he'll keep his name, yet with women we seem to think that there should be a major reason why she would keep hers.

A friend of mine recently got married and kept her own last name. Lots of people kept asking her why she was doing this, and she finally got fed up and told them to go ask her husband why he kept his so that she could talk about something else for a change. :P (When I heard about this, I immediately told her, "You better quit with this bitchy feminist stuff or you'll never get a man!" We laughed until we had to pee.)

And maybe she just doesn't feel like it. With guys, we all just kind of assume that of course he'll keep his name, yet with women we seem to think that there should be a major reason why she would keep hers.

A friend of mine recently got married and kept her own last name. Lots of people kept asking her why she was doing this, and she finally got fed up and told them to go ask her husband why he kept his so that she could talk about something else for a change. :P


Your friend seems a little on the proud side to think that she is so special as to warrant an exception from tradition. She is probably all new aget and feministy.

How can one be a tree hugger and hate children? Or hate, period?

you'll find that "tree huggers" can often be intolerant and mean spirited.

Because people are overpopulated and are causing unprecedented damage to the environment. If people methodically aborted their pregnancies and only every other couple had a child, we could reverse this problem. Our medicine is extending life and allowing those who should have died young to live to reproduce. I love nature and hope that it will be protected and hate the fact that our species is overpopulated and our numbers are still growing instead of receeding. I hate parents for bringing children into the world faster than our death rate because right now we need a negative growth rate not a positive one.


Okay I can understand this perspective, indeed you have some very good points, Yet I still don't understand how one can be a professed lover of nature yet rile against nature, or at least an aspect of it.

We are part of the naturla order of things, we are a part of nature surely what ever we do, must therefore be natural?

Your friend seems a little on the proud side to think that she is so special as to warrant an exception from tradition.
On the contrary, she believes (as I do) that all of us "warrant an exception from tradition," so in that respect she is not special at all.

Because people are overpopulated and are causing unprecedented damage to the environment. If people methodically aborted their pregnancies and only every other couple had a child, we could reverse this problem. Our medicine is extending life and allowing those who should have died young to live to reproduce. I love nature and hope that it will be protected and hate the fact that our species is overpopulated and our numbers are still growing instead of receeding. I hate parents for bringing children into the world faster than our death rate because right now we need a negative growth rate not a positive one.

"methodically aborted their pregnancies" sounds incredibly sick.

How about "methodically practiced birth control" ?

Would you be on the board of those that selected the couples that were allowed to have a child?

"methodically aborted their pregnancies" sounds incredibly sick.

Would it be better if they were "haphazardly aborting their pregnancies"?

How about "methodically practiced birth control" ?

Abortion is a form of birth control. Birth control = controlling when/if there is birth. Abortion certainly does that, doesn't it?

Though I certainly agree that it would probably be better if people could prevent unwanted pregnancies in the first place. Having an abortion isn't fun.

Should it be:
Mr. and Mrs. John and Judy Smith
Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith

??



If you are wanting to honor your mother first, I have also seen it listed as:

Mrs. Judy Smith and her husband, Mr. John Smith
Along with Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Jane Doe
Invite you to the wedding of their children...

Which indicates that they are both hosting the wedding, yet your mother's husband is not your biological father (though he's still having a hand in hosting the event)... I think that takes care of what you were wanting.

Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith is incorrect because it implies there is no connection between the two people and that they are being individually distinguished to show they are not a couple.

Mr. John and Mrs. Judy Smith is incorrect because it implies there is no connection between the two people and that they are
being individually distinguished to show they are not a couple.


Hehh wedding etiqute, it makes me laugh how people worry so much about it.

Man have the wedding that you want, not the one that socity expects.

I got married and the whole of the wedding cost me £37, and that was the license. We had already been living together for a year or so, and on the invite we said no prezzies we want cash. Well the cash we got payed for the wedding and the honeymoon.

We did not have a large, fancy, traditional wedding, but we did have the wedding that we wanted, it was a fuckin' great day!

Hehh wedding etiqute, it makes me laugh how people worry so much about it.

Man have the wedding that you want, not the one that socity expects.

I got married and the whole of the wedding cost me £37, and that was the license. We had already been living together for a year or so, and on the invite we said no prezzies we want cash. Well the cash we got payed for the wedding and the honeymoon.

We did not have a large, fancy, traditional wedding, but we did have the wedding that we wanted, it was a fuckin' great day!

how rude, to ask your friends and family to give you cash.

I used the word "methodically" for the abortions because it implies that there is no fussing around or debating "moral" issues. It is a "just do it" approach. The pro-lifers and breeders are choking our poor planet.

I think "John and Judy Smith" is the least awkward. If you simply can't dispense with the titles, I think "Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Judy Smith" is best.

As for taking the name of your spouse, I think that it is a matter of free choice. This is what feminism is about: choice. If you choose to take your husband's name, that's entirely up to you, and I applaud you for doing what you want.

how rude, to ask your friends and family to give you cash.
I've never quite understood why it's rude to request cash gifts. I mean, you're allowed to register and specifically ask for pretty much everything under the sun, so why is it crass to ask for cash but not for, say, an egg timer and a silver-plated blender?

I've never quite understood why it's rude to request cash gifts. I mean, you're allowed to register and specifically ask for pretty much everything under the sun, so why is it crass to ask for cash but not for, say, an egg timer and a silver-plated blender?
Yeah. It is still often a rather delicate dance, though.

Here (Germany) we don't really do that wedding registry thing so much. Almost never, really.

Blenders and household items are relatively rare as wedding gifts, mostly because people will have them already - after all, people are marrying later and later and usually have already had two separate, more or less fully furnished households to combine into one.

And while parents may often be the ones who give an expensive porcelain service (dunno the word >.< - fancy dishes, basically) that the couple wants, all other guests are usually told to just give money because that's what the couple really needs, let's face it.
Sometimes they will say that they want the money for the honeymoon, or because they want to buy silver cutlery, or something like that.

So wedding presents will typically be either creatively "wrapped" money (I'm convinced there must be at least two dozen books out there with ideas how to gift money creatively) or "non-material" gifts like vouchers for weekend trips, or fancy cooking classes or some such.

Immediate family and closest friends won't gift money, usually, because it's too "impersonal". When one of my closest girlfriends married last year we others got together to give them a weekend getaway we planned out with all kinds of nice touches.

Yeah. It is still often a rather delicate dance, though.

Here (Germany) we don't really do that wedding registry thing so much. Almost never, really.

Blenders and household items are relatively rare as wedding gifts, mostly because people will have them already - after all, people are marrying later and later and usually have already had two separate, more or less fully furnished households to combine into one.

Yeah, in America it is becoming ever more common for people to live together before getting married, so they aren't starting completely from scratch when they begin their married household.



And while parents may often be the ones who give an expensive porcelain service (dunno the word >.< - fancy dishes, basically) that the couple wants, all other guests are usually told to just give money because that's what the couple really needs, let's face it.
Sometimes they will say that they want the money for the honeymoon, or because they want to buy silver cutlery, or something like that.

So wedding presents will typically be either creatively "wrapped" money (I'm convinced there must be at least two dozen books out there with ideas how to gift money creatively) or "non-material" gifts like vouchers for weekend trips, or fancy cooking classes or some such.

See, now I think that's a great idea.

For me, the whole point of giving a gift is to make the other person happy and convey my feelings to them. If they are a good friend or family member of mine, I want to let them know that I care about them, specifically. That's the motivation for me to give them a personal gift as opposed to cash; because it lets them know I put some thought into it.

However, sometimes there's a conflict between making them really happy and expressing my feelings. I mean, what if the gift that perfectly expresses my feelings is something that they don't particularly want or need? They may be very pleased at the thought that went into the gift, but they'll never end up actually USING the gift. The thought does count, but it's not the only thing.

Being able to creatively gift money or gift certificates seems like a perfect balance to me. I can figure out a very personal way to wrap up the gift, to let them know that I put thought and feeling into it, but they get something that is of very practical value to them as well!


Immediate family and closest friends won't gift money, usually, because it's too "impersonal". When one of my closest girlfriends married last year we others got together to give them a weekend getaway we planned out with all kinds of nice touches.That's another idea that I really love.

I'm a person who would rather have time than money, if that makes any sense. I don't want stuff as much as I want pleasure. Getting to give somebody a vacation is exactly the sort of idea that resonates with me.

I've never quite understood why it's rude to request cash gifts. I mean, you're allowed to register and specifically ask for pretty much everything under the sun, so why is it crass to ask for cash but not for, say, an egg timer and a silver-plated blender?

I also think it's rude to register, but not as rude as it is to say

"You are invited to share our special day, please pay for it"

I also think it's rude to register, but not as rude as it is to say

"You are invited to share our special day, please pay for it"
Hmm, I see your point. It does sound very rude when you put it that way.

However, I'm always very thankful when somebody registers for their wedding, because I have so much trouble figuring out what an appropriate gift would be. I'm really good with birthday gifts and more personal presents, but a wedding is usually a more public and formal occasion. I have trouble with that. I like when somebody else gives me a long list of acceptable choices and I get to pick which one of them suits the best.

I think I'm just so used to the gift-giving with weddings that I don't really notice it. It's just assumed that you will bring a gift to a wedding, so I don't think twice about it when there's a registry or something like that.

Yeah, in America it is becoming ever more common for people to live together before getting married, so they aren't starting completely from scratch when they begin their married household. Exactly, that's what I meant (i.e. you already went through combining all your duplicate items way before the wedding).

Exactly, that's what I meant.
Of course, then you have couples like me and my lover, who consider getting married every time we need to get a new appliance.

"Hey, the toaster's broken. We need a new one."
"If we had a wedding our relatives would buy us toasters."
"True. We could probably get a new microwave and some decent glasses."
"My love for you is eternal. Want to get hitched?"
"Hm...nah. I'll just eat my bagel untoasted today. But thanks anyhow."

Hmm, I see your point. It does sound very rude when you put it that way.

However, I'm always very thankful when somebody registers for their wedding, because I have so much trouble figuring out what an appropriate gift would be. I'm really good with birthday gifts and more personal presents, but a wedding is usually a more public and formal occasion. I have trouble with that. I like when somebody else gives me a long list of acceptable choices and I get to pick which one of them suits the best.

I think I'm just so used to the gift-giving with weddings that I don't really notice it. It's just assumed that you will bring a gift to a wedding, so I don't think twice about it when there's a registry or something like that.

we did get gifts for our wedding, but we didn't ask for them, or register anywhere and everything we got worked out fine. It also annoys me when people invite my kids to their kids' birthday parties and register for that.

The conversation around here mostly goes like

"I called to make sure you got the invite to <my kid's> birthday"
"yeah, what does she want?"
"Bobby to come and play at her party"
"yeah, but are you registered?"
"nope"
"what can we bring?"
"yourself?"

the other parents get pretty mad at me though, I guess I am being rude :confused:

the other parents get pretty mad at me though, I guess I am being rude :confused:
Ok, now THAT just confuses me. Why would they get mad at you for that?! You basically just gave them a huge compliment ("What she wants for her birthday is the pleasure of your child's company!"), and they get mad about it?

People baffle me.

Ok, now THAT just confuses me. Why would they get mad at you for that?! You basically just gave them a huge compliment ("What she wants for her birthday is the pleasure of your child's company!"), and they get mad about it?

People baffle me.

I think people are so brainwashed that a birthday invite translates into "buy me something" that when we don't want anything but to have a really fun party, it confuses them.

It also confuses my friends when they get thank you cards for inviting us over for dinner (which is no small undertaking) and even more when we send thank you cards to everyone who attends our parties even when they didn't bring a gift.

I think people are so brainwashed that a birthday invite translates into "buy me something" that when we don't want anything but to have a really fun party, it confuses them.

It also confuses my friends when they get thank you cards for inviting us over for dinner (which is no small undertaking) and even more when we send thank you cards to everyone who attends our parties even when they didn't bring a gift.
I'd be surprised to receive a thank you for attending somebody else's party, and probably even if I received one for throwing a party, but mostly because I don't expect people to be that polite. I certainly wouldn't be confused by it, though...I'd just feel like an ass because I know I should do that stuff more often and I always forget to do it. :(

My mother deserves all the credit for whatever social graces I have. She worked very hard to get across to me that it is important to be polite even if other people don't do it. I used to argue that none of my friends were required to hand-write thank you notes to everybody who sent them a gift, but she never let me get off the hook for that. Much as I hate admitting that she was right (damn her! :)), she was.

I also think it's rude to register, but not as rude as it is to say

"You are invited to share our special day, please pay for it"
In Japan, that's the custom. Everyone shows up with elaborate envelopes bearing cash. My wife's Japanese friends and her imediate family (who made the trip to the US for our wedding) were actually a little disturbed about the notion of buying gifts. To them it seemed rude because my wife and I were paying for everything and giving little gifts and it didn't seem proper to them that we should start our married life without money to pay for it all.

In Japan, that's the custom. Everyone shows up with elaborate envelopes bearing cash. My wife's Japanese friends and her imediate family (who made the trip to the US for our wedding) were actually a little disturbed about the notion of buying gifts. To them it seemed rude because my wife and I were paying for everything and giving little gifts and it didn't seem proper to them that we should start our married life without money to pay for it all.

I guess it's all in the way you package it. I def. wouldn't put it on the invite "we want cash", but maybe when they called to ask where I was registered I might mention it.

I guess it's all in the way you package it. I def. wouldn't put it on the invite "we want cash", but maybe when they called to ask where I was registered I might mention it.
I would agree that "Give me money" sounds bad.

http://onpaper.stores.yahoo.net/worguidforwe.html

Try here. :)

As for the registry/cash thing, at least in east coast weddings, traditionally one registers and is showered with gifts at their bridal shower... and then gets cash, in envelopes, at the wedding reception.

I'm one of those weirdos who stayed home with the parents, so I will be starting out with zip. ;) Of course now all my relatives are asking where I am registered (because I am moving within the next two months) and having to scramble to figure out what I'll need.

Me, I planned for the wedding thing a long time ago -- I've got a hefty chunk o change in a special "wedding account". The plan is that the wedding is paid in full before we embark on married life, so no sitting there counting money at the reception site to pay for the wedding itself and NO DEBT to start with.

Because people are overpopulated and are causing unprecedented damage to the environment. If people methodically aborted their pregnancies and only every other couple had a child, we could reverse this problem. Our medicine is extending life and allowing those who should have died young to live to reproduce. I love nature and hope that it will be protected and hate the fact that our species is overpopulated and our numbers are still growing instead of receeding. I hate parents for bringing children into the world faster than our death rate because right now we need a negative growth rate not a positive one.

THANK you. And hell, if everybody who wanted a baby had one and everybody who didn't particularly want one DIDN'T have one (through birth control or abortion, whatever), we'd probably be fine. Unfortunately, there's all sorts of people out there who have lots to say about that. What will they say when there's too many fucking people and not enough planet to go around?

Would you be on the board of those that selected the couples that were allowed to have a child?

I wish I could be on such a board. I would have a lot to say about who could and who could not have a child.

THANK you. And hell, if everybody who wanted a baby had one and everybody who didn't particularly want one DIDN'T have one (through birth control or abortion, whatever), we'd probably be fine.

*GASP* But then there might be women walking around with unoccupied uteri! They might have TEH SEX and not be punished with a baby for their evil fornications!

Dem may not know it, but she is taking the first step down a road to SIN! By buying in to the evil feminist notion that she should keep her own first name when she marries, she is playing with dangerous notions of individuality and personal dignity. Before you know it, she will be thinking she has the right to have sex for enjoyment or get a job or something even though she's a GURL and clearly should be home making babies.


Unfortunately, there's all sorts of people out there who have lots to say about that. What will they say when there's too many fucking people and not enough planet to go around?
Same thing they say now: "Not my problem. I have enough, my family has enough, and that's all that matters even if there are countless people starving all over the world."