Adults-only weddings

[MotherGoose]

I attended a wedding where they nicely asked for small children who might be noisy or disruptive to stay in the nursery which they had provided. I totally understand not wanting a suddenly screaming toddler to not interrupt your vows. However, perhaps making accommodations for the people who need babysitting would be a middle of the road solution. Kids were welcome at the reception.

[ktgrok]

Part of the issue is that once upon a time, how to address an envelope properly was part of the language arts curriculum. It was taught. Now it isn't, so yeah, having a standard doesn't matter if no one knows what it is. To me, that means we should teach the standard, not abandon it. But...I like knowing what to expect. I may break the rule, but I want to do it knowing I broke it, not accidentally. 

[monstermama]

Part of the issue is that once upon a time, how to address an envelope properly was part of the language arts curriculum. It was taught. Now it isn't, so yeah, having a standard doesn't matter if no one knows what it is. To me, that means we should teach the standard, not abandon it. But...I like knowing what to expect. I may break the rule, but I want to do it knowing I broke it, not accidentally. 

 

So the funny thing is, I was taught that the outer envelope was to be addressed to only the adults - so, for example, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Brady - and the inner envelope was supposed to have the names of all the people invited, so either

 

Mike and Carol Brady

 

or

 

Mike and Carol Brady

Greg, Marcia, Peter, Jan, Bobby and Cindy Brady

 

I don't think I've received a wedding envelope with an inner envelope for a while now, though.  I wonder if that's out of fashion now, or if it's just an easy way to save money.

[ktgrok]

So the funny thing is, I was taught that the outer envelope was to be addressed to only the adults - so, for example, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Brady - and the inner envelope was supposed to have the names of all the people invited, so either

 

Mike and Carol Brady

 

or

 

Mike and Carol Brady

Greg, Marcia, Peter, Jan, Bobby and Cindy Brady

 

I don't think I've received a wedding envelope with an inner envelope for a while now, though.  I wonder if that's out of fashion now, or if it's just an easy way to save money.

 

You know, you may be onto something here!!! That is the way it was taught, and with people cutting costs (validly) and not using inner envelopes, maybe that IS where the confusion comes from!!! That makes a ton of sense. 

 

Bring back inner envelopes? Or change the way we do the outside envelopes? Or just put up a FAQ on the wedding website, lol?

[gardenmom5]

Judith Martin's Miss Manners books are my favorite (and I've read them all, lol): Miss Manners' Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior, Miss Manners' Guide to the Turn of the Millennium, Miss Manners' Guide to Rearing Perfect Children. Miss Manners On Weddings. Not only are they fun to read, but they really are excellent guides to correct behavior and all that. :-)

 

I absolutely adore Miss Manners.  she has brought her perfect instructed children into her efforts at teaching the rest of us neanderthals how to be perfectly proper.  and she has more books than you have listed.

 

(dh's favorite is instructions for a deathbed scene. . . . )

 

I have an Emily Post book at my house. I'm just saying I don't normally open it and I don't expect that everyone is using it. It won't help me decode their invite if they weren't going by a book to begin with.

 

ETA: we're talking about a society that often doesn't acknowledge an RSVP. I left a phone number on mine and people still didn't respond.

 

I received emailed invitations to my nieces shower.  I rsvp'd to the requested phone number and left a message.    . . . . . then I got a phone call from my sil wanting to know if I was coming or not. . . . .sigh.

 

I'm just using your post as a jumping off point - not directed at you, Bluegoat! 

 

It's interesting that some equate etiquette with formality, because they are not the same thing. Etiquette is polite behavior appropriate to the situation at hand, not formality. Etiquette transcends the setting, it is applicable in any situations and it's purpose is to put others at ease. 

 

Etiquette is: 

courtesy

introducing people to each other in an appropriate manner

treating people with dignity

not pointing out the shortcomings of others

doing what you can to make others comfortable

 

There are a lot of different ways all of these things can be accomplished. Some of them change depending on the culture that a person is in. Etiquette is performing appropriate introductions. Some cultures have unique ways of doing this. For example, when my husband travels to Japan, culture says he presents his business card at the time of introduction and that he slightly bows. In the US, he is orally introduced by others or by himself if he is the one responsible for the meeting. Then he can present his business card at any point during a conversation - upon introduction, during a conversation when he realizes the person he is speaking to needs to speak with him later (or he wants to speak with them later), or at the end of a conversation, or even not at all. 

I loved Miss Manner's commentary on the "etiquette camps".  she was horrified when she learned they were about drinking tea and riding in limousines.  two things not to be considered hardships in life . . . she thought they should cover such things as riding public transportation without stepping on someone else's toes, or not opening your umbrella in someone else's face.

 

There was  poster before whose husband missed his brothers wedding because the couple didn't attend the wedding with their kids for their own reasons  .  And all I could I could think was why on earth didn't the husband just go alone?  (Unless he hates that brother, of course.)

 

I do know there are couples who wouldn't dream of going to an event without their partner.  I also know a man who will not attend work dinners or conferences unless his wife is invited as well (which is very rare in business).  But that type of thinking is just very foreign to me. I love my husband, we have fun together, but we are our own people.

perhaps it's just an excuse.  ;p.  lost business opportunities must not mean much to him.

dh and I are not joined at the hip.  we have lives that often intertwine, but can end up in different directions because our responsibilities are different.

[Guest]

I think the fact that there are books/website on the topic (which don't always agree, by the way) is an indication that there never has been agreement on general rules across the country and across generations.  The books are an attempt to create such rules but the generation that used to agree and abide by them in US is a figment of people's imagination. There never has been one that generally agreed on that.  Those book are written by and for boxcheckers and rule followers, people trying to create a sense of traditionalism, and generally liturgical types; they aren't a compilation of what is or was generally accepted across generations and regions. The people living in more isolated subcultures haven't always known this-that's the problem with isolated subcultures; they can create a distorted reality because of the lack of otherness within them. People in subcultures that regularly encounter different subcultural norms and varied socioeconomic groups are usually well aware of how presumptuous those books are and how silly it is to try and create a unified norm over such things in a nation as large and varied as ours. 

 

As for the addressing the invitations example you give, there are plenty of examples here at how there simply are no rules for interpretation even among socially conscientious invitees.  You can keep saying the books solve the problem but the books on their own are not a higher authority than anything else.  In some subcultures it's understood you only bring the people in your household listed on the envelope.  In other subcultures the envelope is addressed  to the head of the household and it's understood everyone in the household is invited.  (Did you read the posts up thread?) Some consider it rude to bring someone not on the invitation.  Others consider it rude to treat a family as anything other than a single unit.  Why should one be the accepted rule and the other not? What's inherently more moral or polite about one norm over the other? 

 

American culture tends to be bad at differentiating between what is and what the want it to be. The ability to switch back appropriately can cause unnecessary friction. Simply beginning with the assumption that not everyone is motivated by the same things, to do the same things, and that the hierarchy of values and norms are different within different families goes a long way.  Being frustrated that everyone doesn't do it my way is as pointless as wishing the sky were green.

 

And that doesn't even begin to address the changes in social norms within subcultures.  Social norms change all the time.  Just about every generation has had its lamenters who pine for the good old days when things were done properly, but alas! these young people/immigrants/new politicians/educators/celebrities/technological developments have made things worse and now it's all going to h3ll in a handbasket.   We all know that the only constant is change, but some people have a really hard time adapting to it and applying it.

 

Actually, in practice, the "rulebooks" are not created by people who want others to obey them.  The reason such books came into existence is because people wanted to know how to act so they would not be stuck in a particular role or class all the rest of their days.  They *wanted* these books, and the writers who wrote them did not make up the rules but recorded the practices of the classes to which others aspired, where there had been training in gentility and behavior and deportment.  

 

The etiquette books were not and are not intended to be dictatorial but enlightening; not class dividing but class blurring.  

[gardenmom5]

Actually, in practice, the "rulebooks" are not created by people who want others to obey them.  The reason such books came into existence is because people wanted to know how to act so they would not be stuck in a particular role or class all the rest of their days.  They *wanted* these books, and the writers who wrote them did not make up the rules but recorded the practices of the classes to which others aspired, where there had been training in gentility and behavior and deportment.  

 

The etiquette books were not and are not intended to be dictatorial but enlightening; not class dividing but class blurring.  

 

think Pygmalion. it wasn't just language that kept her down.

 

[catz]

You know, you may be onto something here!!! That is the way it was taught, and with people cutting costs (validly) and not using inner envelopes, maybe that IS where the confusion comes from!!! That makes a ton of sense. 

 

Bring back inner envelopes? Or change the way we do the outside envelopes? Or just put up a FAQ on the wedding website, lol?

 

I know I've gotten at least one invitation where it has on the RSVP

 

_______ of ___Four______will be attending

 

Where Four is filled in by the couple sending the invites

 

I have also gotten invitations where the outer envelope is written

 

The Fred Johnson Family

Or

Mr and Mrs. Fred Johnson and family

Or

Fred, Suzie, Billy, and Goober Johnson

 

 

I don't get bent out of shape if my kids aren't invited.  Sometimes I don't bring my kids when they have been invited.  Sometimes we all go and have a great time.  

 

Getting a wedding invitation is nice.  If it works for you, great.  If it doesn't, that's ok.  There's just so much drama and emotion wrapped up in this stuff that seems unnecessary.   Even closest family, I don't feel like anyone owes me anything when they get married.  If they want to have a big family event - yay fun.  If they want to elope to a courthouse?  Well - good for them. 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by WoolySocks

[Guest]

I know I've gotten at least one invitation where it has on the RSVP

 

_______ of ___Four______will be attending

 

Where Four is filled in by the couple sending the invites

 

I have also gotten invitations where the outer envelope is written

 

The Fred Johnson Family

Or

Mr and Mrs. Fred Johnson and family

Or

Fred, Suzie, Billy, and Goober Johnson

 

 

I don't get bent out of shape if my kids aren't invited.  Sometimes I don't bring my kids when they have been invited.  Sometimes we all go and have a great time.  

 

Getting a wedding invitation is nice.  If it works for you, great.  If it doesn't, that's ok.  There's just so much drama and emotion wrapped up in this stuff that seems unnecessary.   Even closest family, I don't feel like anyone owes me anything when they get married.  If they want to have a big family event - yay fun.  If they want to elope to a courthouse.  Good for them. 

We just got an invitation addressed to DH & Moi and DS Lastname.  Wrong.  And I don't care.  Because at least I know who is invited.  That is the point.  The fact that it is etiquettely incorrect is much less concern to me than it would be if I had said to myself, "What ignoramusi!  Don't they know the correct rules?"  My judginess in that case would have been by FAR the worst offense.  

[Guest]

One other thing about etiquette books; they evolve over time.  If you have an etiquette book from the 60s, it's out of date.  Even from the 90s, it is probably out of date.  Etiquette is like language--it evolves.  In the 90s, one might have been told that an email thank you note was incorrect.  I doubt that is true anymore.  The fact that anyone bothers to say thank you at all is a miracle.  :0)  

 

My mom used to get bugged because when she said "Thank you," people would respond, "No problem."  She said it was incorrect.  I had a more up-to-date etiquette book which contradicted her and I told her so.  Her wonderful response:  "OK.  No problem."  :0)  

[Ellie]

So the funny thing is, I was taught that the outer envelope was to be addressed to only the adults - so, for example, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Brady - and the inner envelope was supposed to have the names of all the people invited, so either

 

Mike and Carol Brady

 

or

 

Mike and Carol Brady

Greg, Marcia, Peter, Jan, Bobby and Cindy Brady

 

I don't think I've received a wedding envelope with an inner envelope for a while now, though.  I wonder if that's out of fashion now, or if it's just an easy way to save money.

 

 

Yes, because they're spending money on save-the-date cards instead. :001_rolleyes:

 

The outer envelope is Mr. and Mrs. Mike Brady; the inner envelope has titles and surnames only: Mr. and Mrs. Brady, Greg, Marcia, Peter, Jan, Bobby and Cindy. Miss Manners says the reason for all these rules is to make the writing of proper thank-you letters seem simple. :laugh:

[HS Mom in NC]

Or...there are accepted rules, followed by the majority, but some don't know them. Not every stops fully at a stop sign, but it is still the rule :)

 

Bad example.  Stop sign rules are enforced by law, on the books, and every licensed driver had to pass a test prove they knew the law.   As you can see here on this thread, you're wrong about the majority accepting the rules.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

I attended a wedding where they nicely asked for small children who might be noisy or disruptive to stay in the nursery which they had provided. I totally understand not wanting a suddenly screaming toddler to not interrupt your vows. However, perhaps making accommodations for the people who need babysitting would be a middle of the road solution. Kids were welcome at the reception.

 

Not all weddings take place in churches.  Most people I know don't get married in church, even though they are regular church attenders.

 

[HS Mom in NC]

People here don't address invitations to a married couple as Mr. and Mrs. Husband's Name. It's not 1953.
Some people would be deeply offended by it and others would just shrug it off as some antiquated custom reminiscent of the Old South.

 

It would be addressed to:

Mike and Carol Brady

 

or

 

Mike Jones and Carol Smith (If she didn't take his name.)

Mr. and Mrs. are usually used in certain types of conservative churches between kids and adults. Mr., Mrs., and Ms. Firstname are used by closer acquaintances by some people who aren't from here, and they usually don't realize it can be taken as an insult because it's often associated with uneducated, low paying daycare workers. We don't use Sir and Ma'am unless it's an employee talking to a client but that's not universal at every place of business.  Also, Ma'am is reserved for very elderly women and Miss is used for all women who are not clearly elderly whether they're married or not. Sir and ma'am can be interpreted as sarcastic here but most people tolerate it and just assume you're from somewhere else.

[heartlikealion]

Regarding inner/outer envelopes... well, don't some people enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope for an RSVP? Then would that be two or three total envelopes? Lol I can't remember... but I did receive one with the self-addressed stamped envelope. My own came with two envelopes and I might have left the inner one blank. I really don't remember.

[Guest]

I had an outer envelope, an inner envelope and an rsvp card and envelope, pre-stamped.

 

My dad made me re-stuff all 300 of them when he discovered I had put the inner envelope in the outer envelope upside down.

 

He was a very GOOD engineer. :0)

[gardenmom5]

I had an outer envelope, an inner envelope and an rsvp card and envelope, pre-stamped.

 

My dad made me re-stuff all 300 of them when he discovered I had put the inner envelope in the outer envelope upside down.

 

He was a very GOOD engineer. :0)

 

my sil told me the way to torture an engineer is to tie them up - then fold up a map wrong.

 

(hey, she's the one married to an engineer)

[Carrie12345]

So your husband missed his brother's wedding?  I obviously don't know your situation but would it really have been IMPOSSIBLE to find a sitter for the day?  If you absolutely couldn't have found a sitter couldn't your dh have just gone on his own so at least he was able to see his brother married?  

 

 

No, that was less than stellar word usage.  My post was about 2 of my cousins.  I went to the first one's wedding. Didn't go to his brother's.  I had a feeling my word choice might be misunderstood, but I was posting on the run. Oops!  (Dh doesn't have any brothers!)

[Zinnia]

People here don't address invitations to a married couple as Mr. and Mrs. Husband's Name. It's not 1953.

Some people would be deeply offended by it and others would just shrug it off as some antiquated custom reminiscent of the Old South.

 

It would be addressed to:

 

Mike and Carol Brady

 

or

 

Mike Jones and Carol Smith (If she didn't take his name.)

 

Mr. and Mrs. are usually used in certain types of conservative churches between kids and adults. Mr., Mrs., and Ms. Firstname are used by closer acquaintances by some people who aren't from here, and they usually don't realize it can be taken as an insult because it's often associated with uneducated, low paying daycare workers. We don't use Sir and Ma'am unless it's an employee talking to a client but that's not universal at every place of business.  Also, Ma'am is reserved for very elderly women and Miss is used for all women who are not clearly elderly whether they're married or not. Sir and ma'am can be interpreted as sarcastic here but most people tolerate it and just assume you're from somewhere else.

 

This must be so difficult for a move-in.  Lots of unspoken rules that you have no frame of reference for, and you have to figure it out bumbling along.

 

I love being Mr. and Mrs.  My own mother (born in 53, married in 73), considered it horribly offensive, and she hated if someone referred to her as Mrs. Lastname.  "That's my MIL!"  I sort of like it.  A lot.  And I don't mind if someone calls me that at all.  But I am in no way a non-conformist, and I bristle at anyone referring to me as that.  

[ktgrok]

Bad example.  Stop sign rules are enforced by law, on the books, and every licensed driver had to pass a test prove they knew the law.   As you can see here on this thread, you're wrong about the majority accepting the rules.

 

 

I don't know that the majority don't accept the rules. I suppose we could make it a poll? (the only "rule" I've been holding to is that only the people the invitation is addressed to are invited.)

[poppy]

I don't know that the majority don't accept the rules. I suppose we could make it a poll? (the only "rule" I've been holding to is that only the people the invitation is addressed to are invited.)

 

I think that one is pretty common knowledge. 

[ktgrok]

I think that one is pretty common knowledge. 

 

And yet still some don't know. I got an invite with just my husband and I on it, and the bride and groom were shocked we didn't plan to bring the kids. A few others said the same. 

 

I don't think what style of wedding you have is a matter of etiquette, but having common rules about how to address the envelope so people know what it means, that's helpful!

[gardenmom5]

This must be so difficult for a move-in.  Lots of unspoken rules that you have no frame of reference for, and you have to figure it out bumbling along.

 

I love being Mr. and Mrs.  My own mother (born in 53, married in 73), considered it horribly offensive, and she hated if someone referred to her as Mrs. Lastname.  "That's my MIL!"  I sort of like it.  A lot.  And I don't mind if someone calls me that at all.  But I am in no way a non-conformist, and I bristle at anyone referring to me as that.  

 

I'm happy with being Mrs. _.   makes me feel more connected to dh to be recognized as such.    but why would I want to continue using my father's *step*-father's last name when he, reportedly, constantly told him he'd never amount to anything?  after he reconnected with his father - he expressed interest in chainging his name  back to his birthname, but he'd already married with children - makes it very complicated.  my brother changed his last name (to what would  have been our german surname) after he divorced his first wife.

 

what does tend to irk me (and at times really ticks me off) - is being called  my first name (which they got off my credit card) by a clerk in a store who is younger than one of my kids and I don't know from adam.   - or worse "dear". . . . . (especially by someone who is probably younger than me.)

 

 

eta: the address that gets really confusing is "drs" take precedence in place of order on an envelope.  so, when the wife is using her dr title socially - she comes first.  (unless the husband is also a dr.)

Edited September 16, 2016 by gardenmom5

[MotherGoose]

Not all weddings take place in churches. Most people I know don't get married in church, even though they are regular church attenders.

 

My experience has been the opposite. But perhaps even in other venues people could consider providing a nursery if they don't want small screaming people in the service. :). I personally wouldn't take my screaming kids to a wedding. If they were old enough to behave, sure. But not my 11 month old, unless specifically invited.

[Guest]

This must be so difficult for a move-in.  Lots of unspoken rules that you have no frame of reference for, and you have to figure it out bumbling along.

(snip)

 

This is covered in modern etiquette books.  :0)  Etiquette, like language, adapts.  

[LucyStoner]

I don't care one way or the other. I'm not offended by adults only or bothered by children.

 

That said, as someone who has children who needed more than just any random babysitter, a month is actually not enough time for every parent to find a sitter. I had a very short list of possibles and it's not like they didn't have lives too. Hiring a new sitter for a special events was honesty more hassle than the average special event was generally worth. Similarly, there have been weddings where our kids were welcome but it was too much hassle to bring them and if we could get a sitter, going kid free was a nice break for us. That's just life as a parent of special needs kids.

 

Now, things are different. If it is a local event, they can stay by themselves for a short time but we won't stay at the wedding late unless we arrange sleepovers or get a sitter they know well.

Edited September 16, 2016 by LucyStoner

[Audrey]

My niece is getting married next month back in our hometown.  While we don't talk regularly, we do chat occasionally, lately mostly about her wedding planning.  I was a bit taken aback when we got the invitations last week and realized the wedding was adults-only, considering that it's not the norm in our family.  We're lucky that MIL lives close enough that she can babysit, and that it looks like there's enough time between the ceremony and reception that I can run back and nurse the baby.  I know there are several other relatives (some with younger babies) that will be in the same situation, but without the built-in babysitters.

 

What do you think about adults-only weddings?  While I certainly don't think it's any of my business what her reasons are, I do wish she'd mentioned it to us before we got the invites so we could've planned better.  Do you think guests traveling from out-of-town should be given a heads-up about it through the grapevine?

I think adults-only weddings (and other events) are fantastic. I'm not a fan of other people's little kids, but always seem to be stuck with minding duties at such events. And, inevitably, at least some of the kids are snot dragging to boot. I think that, even at family events, if you can't get a sitter for the sick one, at least one parent should just stay home with them. At any rate, wedding invitations usually go out 4-6 weeks ahead. If she was within that timeline, I don't see how she owed you any more advance notice than that, even if you're coming from out of town. 4-6 weeks is plenty of time to find arrangements or cancel going or find some other alternative.

[Junie]

There have been several times that I would have liked to get a babysitter to go to a wedding without the children (even though they were invited).  The problem with that is that everyone who usually babysits for us was also going to the wedding.

 

 

 

[Audrey]

I don't care one way or the other. I'm not offended by adults only or bothered by children.

 

That said, as someone who has children who needed more than just any random babysitter, a month is actually not enough time for every parent to find a sitter. I had a very short list of possibles and it's not like they didn't have lives too. Hiring a new sitter for a special events was honesty more hassle than the average special event was generally worth. Similarly, there have been weddings where our kids were welcome but it was too much hassle to bring them and if we could get a sitter, going kid free was a nice break for us. That's just life as a parent of special needs kids.

 

Now, things are different. If it is a local event, they can stay by themselves for a short time but we won't stay at the wedding late unless we arrange sleepovers or get a sitter they know well.

 

 

 

There have been several times that I would have liked to get a babysitter to go to a wedding without the children (even though they were invited).  The problem with that is that everyone who usually babysits for us was also going to the wedding.

Understood on both counts... however, none of these problems and special circumstances are the bride's problem. This bride doesn't want kids there, she's said so, given ample notice, and it's the guests' problem to deal with making arrangements or not attending or finding an alternative that will work.

 

And you know... the world won't end if it turns out that someone can't make it because of problems with making arrangements for their kids. It's just a wedding, and if the bride gets pissy about it, a simple explanation should suffice. It was her choice to exclude kids. If one couldn't accommodate that, then so be it. That's the way that cookie crumbled. A decent person would understand that the bride has her wishes, and a decent bride would understand that her wishes might have been too much for some to manage, and both parties should accept those facts graciously.

[LucyStoner]

Understood on both counts... however, none of these problems and special circumstances are the bride's problem. This bride doesn't want kids there, she's said so, given ample notice, and it's the guests' problem to deal with making arrangements or not attending or finding an alternative that will work.

 

And you know... the world won't end if it turns out that someone can't make it because of problems with making arrangements for their kids. It's just a wedding, and if the bride gets pissy about it, a simple explanation should suffice. It was her choice to exclude kids. If one couldn't accommodate that, then so be it. That's the way that cookie crumbled. A decent person would understand that the bride has her wishes, and a decent bride would understand that her wishes might have been too much for some to manage, and both parties should accept those facts graciously.

I totally agree. That said, I've run into more than a couple of people who are very rude about us choosing to decline and also others upset when we decline to bring our kids. I'm not the guest who asks to bring uninvited kids or who offers up an elaborate explaination when I decline. It's rude for the hosts to demand to know our reasoning or to try to solve it. For example, the woman marrying an old friend of ours was really upset we declined and tried to assure us we could just use the same sitter as some of her friends. Thanks for offering, but that's not feasible for us should have been a reasonable explaination. But it wasn't. She was a bit of a fruitcake and honestly, I wasn't that surprised when they divorced recently.

 

Because we married and had a child before most of our peer group, this issue came up a fair bit. A lot of our peers were marrying when things were at a very difficult spot for our older son. We were still learning how and when to explain things. There are some people we just aren't close to anymore, not out of hatred but just because we don't have a lot of extra time and don't choose to make it available for people who were so intolerant of us declining their invite, even when they were told why. Sometimes it felt like we weren't invited as guests but desirable extras in their little show and they were mad we wouldn't be there to be two more clappers. Our close friends who married in our friend group or married a non-crazy woman got it and things always worked out- either we'd be able to go, or not. Sometimes one of us would go but they never had issue with whatever we decided. Unfortunately one 1/2 of the couple, usually the bride, being pushy or rude about it was far from rare. Of course "when they had kids, they wouldn't "let" their kids "ruin" their adult lives." Bully for you lady, bully for you.

Edited September 16, 2016 by LucyStoner

[FaithManor]

Doesn't this whole thing make you long for Victorian Era uptight societal crazy where no one would dream of asking you a personal question and if you declined an invitation for any reason, most people would not have the moxie to ask why?

 

I am kind of there. Really. This nosy nelly society we live in really seems to think that they deserve to know everything about a person.

 

Blech.

 

The last wedding I did had RSVP cards and the couple had quite a sense of humor. They created Lord of the Rings themed invitations, and the accept line said, "You have my sword,  and my axe, and my bow." The decline line said "One does not simply attend a wedding."

 

I got a kick out of that.

 

Anyway, I don't think any guest owes any couple an explanation for not attending unless it is say mom and dad! Just return the RSVP card with the appropriately checked box so they know how to plan.

[LucyStoner]

For example one bride went off the rails when we declined her request that our son be the ring bearer. She didn't know our son or especially care about him (the groom was our friend) but apparently she wanted cute kids in the wedding and wedding pictures but didn't have any little kids in her family. I explained that our son wouldn't be able to perform the "job" well and would be very stressed by the whole thing. Our son was a very adorable little boy. She truthfully wanted him because she thought he would have looked like a wedding magazine model in the pictures with his double dimples, rosy cheeks, etc. What she didn't undersand is that under the stress of posing for pictures or carrying something in front of 150 people, he'd be neither cute or happy or fun for her to have in her wedding. To her, it was so awful of us that we weren't "letting" him be in her wedding. Some people just can't be reasoned with. If they can't see the disability it doesn't exist. And some people, who are otherwise reasonable, lose their ever loving minds over their weddings.

Edited September 16, 2016 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

I totally agree. That said, I've run into more than a couple of people who are very rude about us choosing to decline and also others upset when we decline to bring our kids. I'

 

 

maybe they thought you wouldn't be sending a present . . . . .

 

(as well as your subsequent post on the bride who wanted the magazine spread photo shoot.)

 

I was recently reading about a bride and her attendents who were stuck on the side of the road when the limo got a flat tire.  I can see brides freaking out and screaming.  some passerby did stop, and ferried them to the wedding. (the groom was getting nervous as they were late.  apparently, no one had cell phones . . .)  instead of it being something horrible - it was laughed about all through the reception as the story made the rounds.  no one will be forgetting their reception any time soon.

[LucyStoner]

We always gave a present. Though I will admit to being more generous for the understanding people, lol.

[Julie Smith]

I admit I don't give presents for any weddings I attend that are for my husband's friends or family. I always leave it up to him, I remind him about it, offer suggestions, tell him what manner books say should be done, give him lots of time to deal with it.  Even so he sometimes doesn't get around to it - ever. :glare: We have never had anyone be even a tiny bit annoyed or even mention it - and this is for weddings we attended. 

[heartlikealion]

I admit I don't give presents for any weddings I attend that are for my husband's friends or family. I always leave it up to him, I remind him about it, offer suggestions, tell him what manner books say should be done, give him lots of time to deal with it.  Even so he sometimes doesn't get around to it - ever. :glare: We have never had anyone be even a tiny bit annoyed or even mention it - and this is for weddings we attended. 

 

I'm not sure that you would know this.

 

[bettyandbob]

I admit I don't give presents for any weddings I attend that are for my husband's friends or family. I always leave it up to him, I remind him about it, offer suggestions, tell him what manner books say should be done, give him lots of time to deal with it. Even so he sometimes doesn't get around to it - ever. :glare: We have never had anyone be even a tiny bit annoyed or even mention it - and this is for weddings we attended.

I doubt most people hunt their guests down to demand presents. You are likely to never know if you annoyed them. In some cases the relationship the friend had with you may be different because they felt a little slighted, but it may be different because social stuff changes as a marriage evolves. You will never know.

 

In the past etiquette guidelines suggested wedding guests had a year to send a gift to the married couple.

[happypamama]

I didn't choose to have a kid-free wedding (and has several kids in my wedding), but if that's what someone wants, then I'm not going to bother being offended by it. Their wedding, their choice.

 

That being said, up until recently, at least one of my children was too young to leave overnight (and I don't leave nursing infants at all), plus my parents and ILs weren't close enough to keep the children. (Now, for the next six months until the new baby arrived, we could go because the other children are old enough to leave, and my parents are close enough and willing to babysit, but that's not going to be feasible for another couple of years.). So I think people who don't invite children are going to need to understand that for various reasons, the couple attending without their children just may not be feasible, logistically or financially, and they should not be offended by that.

 

(I also suspect that many couples who don't have children yet also don't get the realities of having children. Not because they're mean but because they just haven't experienced it. They might assume that a couple might enjoy a night off from the baby, but they don't know that sometimes that's the last thing on a new mom's mind, especially if she's nursing.)

 

And parents should be wise and take their children out if need be. I've had an infant who slept through a wedding, and I've had infants who felt the people talking meant they should participate, so one of us (usually me, but DH got to wrangle our infant and toddler when I was MOH in my sister's wedding) takes them out. It's just common courtesy.

[Valley Girl]

I'm firmly on the side that says you're not obligated to provide childcare for the children of guests at an adults-only wedding. However, as I've been reading this thread, I remembered a family I know. Two siblings. One got married out-of-state and had an adults-only wedding. We didn't go because we didn't want to leave our young kids for a few days. No problem. Our kids--our responsibility. However, and this is a big one, the bride's sibling had a new baby. Now you would think (I certainly would) that an exception would be made for a close family member like that. I know I would have done back flips to make it possible for my sibling to attend. However, the bridal couple wouldn't budge, and the sibling stayed home. Ouch. Not cool. Not cool at all.

[Scarlett]

My first wedding was in our house of worship. Free. Reception was in a community center. Free. It was cake and punch and nuts and mints only......cake was made by a friend as a gift. . There were about 100 people there. At that time I had never known anyone to exclude children from the guest list.

 

Second wedding was held in a B&B. It cost $400. It was a lovely setting...we only invited our parents and our children and the friend (and his wife and child) who performed the ceremony. And my close friend who is a photographer. Cake and punch was part of the $400....so was photography...but my friend was there and I much prefer her photos.

 

3 weeks later we had a big reception.....we rented a big hall....$500. Sent invitations. Had beautiful cakes made....a friend did them and charged only $100. We put our wedding attire back on.....and friends in our congregation organized an organized covered dish.....we had lasagna, green beans, salad and bread. It was simple and wonderful.. About 100 people came. Again not inviting children never crossed my mind.

 

I am taking notes for when my own boys get married. I hope they can enjoy and not stress.

[Zinnia]

This is covered in modern etiquette books. :0) Etiquette, like language, adapts.

in the books I have read, it is not "horribly offensive" to address envelopes in the antiquated custom of Mr. and Mrs. If that is indeed the culture of the area, it would be hard to know until you had already offended someone.

[poppy]

I'm firmly on the side that says you're not obligated to provide childcare for the children of guests at an adults-only wedding. However, as I've been reading this thread, I remembered a family I know. Two siblings. One got married out-of-state and had an adults-only wedding. We didn't go because we didn't want to leave our young kids for a few days. No problem. Our kids--our responsibility. However, and this is a big one, the bride's sibling had a new baby. Now you would think (I certainly would) that an exception would be made for a close family member like that. I know I would have done back flips to make it possible for my sibling to attend. However, the bridal couple wouldn't budge, and the sibling stayed home. Ouch. Not cool. Not cool at all.

 

 

When I think of adult weddings, I assume there is an exception for young nursing infants..... "4th trimester" so 3 months or younger.  Regardless of the relationship to the couple.

However,  I will say this, I'd get me a manual pump to avoid missing is sibling's wedding, even if her being dumb about not allowing the baby to come annoyed me. Or, I'd at least try.

[poppy]

in the books I have read, it is not "horribly offensive" to address envelopes in the antiquated custom of Mr. and Mrs. If that is indeed the culture of the area, it would be hard to know until you had already offended someone.

 

I really can't imagine anyone thinking addressing a grown woman as "Mr. Husband's First-and-Last Name" would be OK. Maybe someone who is extremely sheltered and literal would make that mistake? But really.  It's a strange way to address another adult, just logically speaking.

[Valley Girl]

When I think of adult weddings, I assume there is an exception for young nursing infants..... "4th trimester" so 3 months or younger.  Regardless of the relationship to the couple.

However,  I will say this, I'd get me a manual pump to avoid missing is sibling's wedding, even if her being dumb about not allowing the baby to come annoyed me. Or, I'd at least try.

 

I'm with you. I think there can be give and take on both sides in special circumstances. In this particular case, significant travel was involved and they didn't want to leave the very new baby behind (understandably). As the sibling guest, I might have done what you suggested if my DH were willing to stay at the hotel with the baby. As a cousin or something, I'd stay home (which was our choice). If I were the host, I'd make the exception for a sibling without feeling the need to make the exception for everyone. Where it gets tricky is when there are hard feelings on one side or the other.

[TechWife]

I really can't imagine anyone thinking addressing a grown woman as "Mr. Husband's First-and-Last Name" would be OK. Maybe someone who is extremely sheltered and literal would make that mistake? But really.  It's a strange way to address another adult, just logically speaking.

 

The correct address is 

Mr. and Mrs. Husband's first and last name 

 

or 

Ms. Wife's First Name  and Husband's Last Name (or her last name if she didn't take his)

Mr. Husband's First and Last Name

 

The title "Mrs." means "married to the person following."  Therefore, "Mrs. Wife's First Name and Husband's Last Name" is not accurate in any case because she is not married to herself. 

[poppy]

The correct address is 

Mr. and Mrs. Husband's first and last name 

 

or 

Ms. Wife's First Name  and Husband's Last Name (or her last name if she didn't take his)

Mr. Husband's First and Last Name

 

The title "Mrs." means "married to the person following."  Therefore, "Mrs. Wife's First Name and Husband's Last Name" is not accurate in any case because she is not married to herself. 

 

No. Mrs is a straightforward title in common usage, and is used as such in every every print publication I am aware of.  

 

Mrs. meaning "married to the personal following" is as relevant as Saturday meaning "day of Saturn".

[gardenmom5]

in the books I have read, it is not "horribly offensive" to address envelopes in the antiquated custom of Mr. and Mrs. If that is indeed the culture of the area, it would be hard to know until you had already offended someone.

 

these days - plan on SOMEONE taking offense no matter what you do.  I've been informed clerks in stores are *told* to address customers by their first name.  (even if they get the name off the credit card.)  I do NOT want some clerk who is only ringing me up, likely didn't assist me at all with obtaining the items I'm purchasing, and only got my name off a credit card using my first name - and I get downright angry when they call me "dear". (especially if it's multiple times).

 

The correct address is 

Mr. and Mrs. Husband's first and last name 

 

or 

Ms. Wife's First Name  and Husband's Last Name (or her last name if she didn't take his)

Mr. Husband's First and Last Name

 

The title "Mrs." means "married to the person following."  Therefore, "Mrs. Wife's First Name and Husband's Last Name" is not accurate in any case because she is not married to herself. 

 

and then there are women who use their title of dr socially.  (75 years ago, only medical drs used dr socially.   I do have a female medical dr who graduated in the 30s in my extended family history.  with different flavors of docs using dr socially - it leads to confusion.)

dr trumps mr. for social rank.  (if a person chooses to use a title of dr socially - not all do.)

dr woman's name -last name she uses socially with her title.

mr. man's name, last name.

 

I know my dd had many hoops to work through as she did plan on changing her name - but she married just before graduation, and the rec was "do not change your name until after graduation and licensing have all been completed.  otherwise, agencies freak out with the differences in names.

 

I recall miss manner's instruction about dressing for dinner. . . . and how "we're not dressing" once meant suits.  and is an instruction she hasn't dared use since the 60s.  culture changes - and not always for the better.

same thing with social titles and address.  I have no problem being Mrs. husband's name. (which I rarely see anymore.) but I'm also aware the traditional meaning of Mrs. wife's first name husbands last name was used by divorced women.  and no, I don't think if I am addressed as Mrs. Kristen husbands last name people will think I'm divorced.  nowadays - almost every women I know who is divorced, and had previously changed her name to her husbands name - goes back to her maiden name. (I do have sympathy for professional women who are between a rock and a hard place because they've established a rep with their (no-longer) married name that they'd love to jettison if they could, but it's complicated.  I even know one woman who was using her ex-husband's last name while married to her current husband. (she also disliked her maiden name, the ex's name made some people think of a clothing designer.)  after she had children with the current husband - she bit the bullet to deal with the rep fall-out and change her name.

 

personally, I prefer no titles socially.  

 

one advantage of using a different title socially vs professionally - you know when an invitation comes if it's from someone who actually knows you.

[goldberry]

 

Mr. and Mrs. are usually used in certain types of conservative churches between kids and adults. Mr., Mrs., and Ms. Firstname are used by closer acquaintances by some people who aren't from here, and they usually don't realize it can be taken as an insult because it's often associated with uneducated, low paying daycare workers.

 

I don't think I understand this comment.  

[goldberry]

in the books I have read, it is not "horribly offensive" to address envelopes in the antiquated custom of Mr. and Mrs. If that is indeed the culture of the area, it would be hard to know until you had already offended someone.

 

The only situation I know of where someone took offense to the Mr. and Mrs. John Doe format is when the wife did not take the husband's name.  The name would not even be accurate then, if both parties don't share the same last name.  I understood why she was annoyed, as it seemed like the person was deliberately ignoring her choice not to take the name.  

 

Otherwise, I have never known anyone to be offended over an invite, letter, or anything else addressed that way.  It is a customary means of address, not a political statement.

[marbel]

I'm trying to figure out why anyone would be offended at receiving mail addressed to Mrs Husband's Firstname Lastname.  (I am talking about people in the US only, where it has been a common form of address for at least as long as I've been alive but surely much longer.)  

 

I can see why people might not love it.  I remember the first time my mother sent me mail that way.  It felt weird.  Like, where am I in this?  But then of course I came to my senses and opened the letter.  It was a nice letter. :-)    

 

I can see why it might seem antiquated and odd. 

 

But I cannot for the life of me see what is offensive about it.