Recent Widow

kimmiinthemitten

My uncle passed away last week.  We're preparing our invitations and I'm not sure how to address my aunts now.

Is she
Mrs. HusbandName Lastname
or
Mrs. HerName Lastname

Jen4948

If she's always gone by Mrs. HusbandName Lastname, keep addressing her that way unless and until you hear from her that she prefers that you address her differently.

Otherwise, use whatever form of address she prefers.

kimmiinthemitten

Jen4948 said:

If she's always gone by Mrs. HusbandName Lastname, keep addressing her that way unless and until you hear from her that she prefers that you address her differently.

Otherwise, use whatever form of address she prefers.

My family isn't very formal so I'm not sure what she prefers.  She literally buried him yesterday so I don't want to ask, but we're sending in our order for the envelopes tomorrow.

SP29

From my understanding, if following traditional rules of address, she would remain Mrs. HusbandsFirst LastName.

Essentially, she would continue to be addressed the same as a widow as she was when married to her living husband.

kimmiinthemitten

SP29 said:

From my understanding, if following traditional rules of address, she would remain Mrs. HusbandsFirst LastName.

Essentially, she would continue to be addressed the same as a widow as she was when married to her living husband.

Okay, thanks!

CMGragain

The traditional address for a widow is Mrs. John Husbandlastname.

lyndausvi

I'm going against the grain and say Mrs Herfirstname last name. 


Mostly it's because I can't stand being addressed simply has Mrs Hisfirst last name.  I'm fine when it's Mr and Mrs.  But something addressed SOLEY to me?  Hell, no.


That said, I addressed an envelope to a widow of some 30 years as Mrs Herfirst last name.  She sent it back as Mrs Hisfirst last.   Okay, that is what she prefers, so from then on that is how I address things to her.

In these more modern times I err on the side of changing times. So Mrs Herfirst it is.  If she likes it Mrs Hisfirst , she will let you know.

CMGragain

lyndausvi said:

I'm going against the grain and say Mrs Herfirstname last name. 


Mostly it's because I can't stand being addressed simply has Mrs Hisfirst last name.  I'm fine when it's Mr and Mrs.  But something addressed SOLEY to me?  Hell, no.


That said, I addressed an envelope to a widow of some 30 years as Mrs Herfirst last name.  She sent it back as Mrs Hisfirst last.   Okay, that is what she prefers, so from then on that is how I address things to her.

In these more modern times I err on the side of changing times. So Mrs Herfirst it is.  If she likes it Mrs Hisfirst , she will let you know.

I do understand your thinking, but some widows might be insulted by being addressed in a different manner.  The idea of addressing a widow as Mrs. John Hislastname is to honor her late husband.

[Deleted User]

Could you address it to Mrs. Lastname and avoid the first name altogether? Or is that not formal enough?

Jen4948

Ironring said:

Could you address it to Mrs. Lastname and avoid the first name altogether? Or is that not formal enough?

There has to be a first name. The question is whether or not it should be hers or her late husband's.

lyndausvi

CMGragain said:

lyndausvi said:

I'm going against the grain and say Mrs Herfirstname last name. 


Mostly it's because I can't stand being addressed simply has Mrs Hisfirst last name.  I'm fine when it's Mr and Mrs.  But something addressed SOLEY to me?  Hell, no.


That said, I addressed an envelope to a widow of some 30 years as Mrs Herfirst last name.  She sent it back as Mrs Hisfirst last.   Okay, that is what she prefers, so from then on that is how I address things to her.

In these more modern times I err on the side of changing times. So Mrs Herfirst it is.  If she likes it Mrs Hisfirst , she will let you know.

I do understand your thinking, but some widows might be insulted by being addressed in a different manner.  The idea of addressing a widow as Mrs. John Hislastname is to honor her late husband.

and some will be insulted by being addressed in that manner.     Why does my dead husband need honoring?   I'm the one being invited, address it to me.  

It's kind-of a no-win situation here.   Either way someone might get offended.  With the exception of the widow in my early post, I don't know a single widow who likes to be addressed Mrs John Lastname. Sadly, I know a few.  


@kimmiinthemitten  said her family it's very formal, I would go with Mrs Herfirst.    Now if auntie was CMG, obviously I would go with the traditional manner.

MairePoppy

Lynda - my sentiments exactly. I didn't give up my first name when I married my husband, although I did take his last name. Why is it acceptable to offend me? I despise being addressed as Mrs. James Poppy - I'm Maire Poppy. Period.

Of course, if you know your aunt has used her husband's first name throughout her marriage, you should address her invitation accordingly. Pay close attention to the rsvp to make sure you get it correct on future correspondence.

Jen4948 said:

Ironring said:

Could you address it to Mrs. Lastname and avoid the first name altogether? Or is that not formal enough?

There has to be a first name. The question is whether or not it should be hers or her late husband's.

I was about to suggest she use Mrs. Lastname, also. @Jen4948, what is your reasoning? I can see this would be a problem with escort cards since there may be many guests with the same last name. Just curious.

kimmiinthemitten

I talked it over and used this conversation with both my cousin and sister. They both agree that since his death is so recent that I should address it as Mrs. Hername Lastname. 

Ironically, we have one other widow invited who also prefers to be addressed in that manner because the other way is still a painful reminder of her loss and that is going on 3 years now.   That was per her daughter.  

[Deleted User]

@MairePoppy +1 to your question. @Jen4948 why is a first name needed? Is that the most formal way and that's why? I'd rather just be called myfirstname ourlastname without the beginning title. so clearly not the expert in this topic. 

I understand and why this wouldn't work for escort cards because of multiple people with the same last name and also possibility singling the person out for being different. 

Jen4948

MairePoppy said:

Lynda - my sentiments exactly. I didn't give up my first name when I married my husband, although I did take his last name. Why is it acceptable to offend me? I despise being addressed as Mrs. James Poppy - I'm Maire Poppy. Period.

Of course, if you know your aunt has used her husband's first name throughout her marriage, you should address her invitation accordingly. Pay close attention to the rsvp to make sure you get it correct on future correspondence.

Jen4948 said:

Ironring said:

Could you address it to Mrs. Lastname and avoid the first name altogether? Or is that not formal enough?

There has to be a first name. The question is whether or not it should be hers or her late husband's.

I was about to suggest she use Mrs. Lastname, also. @Jen4948, what is your reasoning? I can see this would be a problem with escort cards since there may be many guests with the same last name. Just curious.

Stuck in box

That actually is my reason -- to distinguish that Mrs. John Lastname, as opposed to Mrs. William Lastname, is the intended guest.

Also, this is subjective, but it seems pretty informal to me to omit a first name. 

Of course, if the event is not all that formal and/or there's only one Mrs. Lastname, I don't suppose it matters.

MairePoppy

Thanks for answering @Jen4948. Mrs. Lastname seems formal to me, but like Ironring, I prefer no title at all. I especially don't like that Mrs. and Miss indicate whether a woman is married, whereas Mr. does not. 

Kimmi, I'm glad you sorted it out with the help of your family members. We're so helpful with all our opinions. LOL.

CMGragain

kimmiinthemitten said:

I talked it over and used this conversation with both my cousin and sister. They both agree that since his death is so recent that I should address it as Mrs. Hername Lastname. 

Ironically, we have one other widow invited who also prefers to be addressed in that manner because the other way is still a painful reminder of her loss and that is going on 3 years now.   That was per her daughter.  

It is always polite and proper to address someone with the style that they prefer.  The traditional style is the default style.

LtPowers

Traditionally, "Mrs. Hername Lastname" implies a divorcee. "Ms." is the proper honorific if you're using a wife or widow's given name. I personally think "Ms." is a lovely invention, allowing ladies the same respect as gentlemen as to the irrelevance of their marital status.


Powers  &8^]

Jen4948

LtPowers said:

Traditionally, "Mrs. Hername Lastname" implies a divorcee. "Ms." is the proper honorific if you're using a wife or widow's given name. I personally think "Ms." is a lovely invention, allowing ladies the same respect as gentlemen as to the irrelevance of their marital status.


Powers  &8^]

Ms. is also the proper honorific for single and divorced women.

CMGragain

"Ms." is a proper title for any female, unless she is using her married title, ei. Mrs. John Doe.

BeyondHappy

I'm in the South, where everyone would say to use Mrs. HisFirst HisLast,  because Mrs. HERFirst HisLast means a divorcee.  If you are not in an area that is rigid with tradition, just use her name like this:  Marie Poppy.  No title necessary.

LtPowers

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

[Deleted User]

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

CMGragain

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

[Deleted User]

CMGragain said:

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

Haha, well just because I'd prefer to be called myfirstname ourlastname doesn't mean I would get angry or horribly offended if it was addressed otherwise. I know that I'm the one who has a non-traditional preference, and, as such, can't expect everyone to be able to read my mind. 

I definitely have an issue with Mrs hisfirstbame ourlastname though. Why does my name (and my identify) cease to exist when I get married? (Rhetorical question. I understand the historical aspects of it). 

CMGragain

I have no problems with Ms. Jane Ironring.

MairePoppy

CMGragain said:

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

Sorry, but no. Why should I compromise the way I prefer to be addressed? I would address you by your preferred title and name and expect the same in return. If you (general you) prefer to make me uncomfortable with your correspondence, then don't bother.

CMGragain

MairePoppy said:

CMGragain said:

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

Sorry, but no. Why should I compromise the way I prefer to be addressed? I would address you by your preferred title and name and expect the same in return. If you (general you) prefer to make me uncomfortable with your correspondence, then don't bother.

I would certainly use the title you prefer, but to use no title at all?  You are asking me to be rude to you, and I just couldn't do that.

Jen4948

CMGragain said:

MairePoppy said:

CMGragain said:

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

Sorry, but no. Why should I compromise the way I prefer to be addressed? I would address you by your preferred title and name and expect the same in return. If you (general you) prefer to make me uncomfortable with your correspondence, then don't bother.

I would certainly use the title you prefer, but to use no title at all?  You are asking me to be rude to you, and I just couldn't do that.

What's rude is to address someone in a manner they don't wish to be addressed. That includes using a title for someone who doesn't wish to use one at all.

banana468

Jen4948 said:

CMGragain said:

MairePoppy said:

CMGragain said:

Ironring said:

LtPowers said:

BeyondHappy said:

No title necessary.

Miss Manners would disagree. The omission of the title is only appropriate in casual correspondence, not wedding invitations.

Regardless of what miss manners says, this is the way I would prefer to be addressed for everything. This still falls into the category of personal preference. 

It would be really hard for me to write to you.  Can't you find a compromise that will make us traditional folks happy?

Sorry, but no. Why should I compromise the way I prefer to be addressed? I would address you by your preferred title and name and expect the same in return. If you (general you) prefer to make me uncomfortable with your correspondence, then don't bother.

I would certainly use the title you prefer, but to use no title at all?  You are asking me to be rude to you, and I just couldn't do that.

What's rude is to address someone in a manner they don't wish to be addressed. That includes using a title for someone who doesn't wish to use one at all.

Yup.   This.

I started calling my MIL "Mrs.  Lastname" and she quickly said, "Call me "Firstname."   I wasn't about to start calling her something to please ME.   You refer to the person by the name that they want you to use - not the name YOU want to use.   

Luckily my  husband isn't named Crap Bag. 

LtPowers

Jen4948 said:

What's rude is to address someone in a manner they don't wish to be addressed. That includes using a title for someone who doesn't wish to use one at all.

I'm not sure the etiquette experts would agree. While they allow people to choose among various standard styles for their preferred form of address, I don't believe they sanction the ability of individuals to pre-select the formality of correspondence they receive.

May I ask why you object to titles? Is it the formality? Or the fact that they're inherently gendered? Or something else?