Invite Wording

pinkshorts27 · January 2014

So I have a while until invites go out, I'm just excited thinking about them.

My parents are clearly hosting the event (ceremony at a church). Is the son of statement okay? Is that weird? I kind of like it, but don't want anyone to get upset. Also if his mom passed away would we only say "son of grooms dad" or would we include both of his parents? Just curious what you guys think (FYI time and address are fake, taken from an example and not even the right state)

Mr. and Mrs. Brides Parents
Request the honor of your presence
at the marriage of their daughter
Bride
to
Groom

son of Grooms parents

Saturday, the twenty-third of June
two thousand and twelve
at half-past four o'clock
First Church
New Vernon, New Jersey

photokitty · January 2014

it's fine to say "son of".

Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.

GL!

Jen4948 · January 2014

The only changes I'd make to your wording are to lowercase the word "request" and spell the word "honor" as "honour" in the second line.

"Honor" is normally correct in America, but invitation wording uses the British spelling.

pinkshorts27 · January 2014

Jen4948 said:

The only changes I'd make to your wording are to lowercase the word "request" and spell the word "honor" as "honour" in the second line.

"Honor" is normally correct in America, but invitation wording uses the British spelling.

haha fair enough. when we pick our invites I will get a proof. I was just trying to figure out the general format.

Thanks!

HisGirlFriday13 · January 2014

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:

Joe Smith,

son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Jen4948 · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:
Joe Smith,
son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Actually, it's less confusing and just more considerate of guests not to mention "the late" at all on an invitation.

You can say that guests should be able to put up with that, but invitation wording is not about mapping out the family tree or "honoring" anyone other than the guests (not the parents), so "the late" really doesn't belong at all. Programs rather than invitations are a more appropriate place to give deceased loved ones tributes.

HisGirlFriday13 · January 2014

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:
Joe Smith,
son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Actually, it's less confusing and just more considerate of guests not to mention "the late" at all on an invitation.

You can say that guests should be able to put up with that, but invitation wording is not about mapping out the family tree or "honoring" anyone other than the guests (not the parents), so "the late" really doesn't belong at all. Programs rather than invitations are a more appropriate place to give deceased loved ones tributes.

I disagree entirely. It's in no way confusing to list parents -- it's two or three lines, and people can manage to read that -- and it's not even remotely "inconsiderate" to mention "the late" on an invite. It tells people a salient fact (that one parent is dead) and gives them a heads-up not to mention it.

Yes, programmes are the place for tributes. But "son of" isn't a tribute, it's a statement of fact.

Jen4948 · January 2014

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:
Joe Smith,
son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Actually, it's less confusing and just more considerate of guests not to mention "the late" at all on an invitation.

You can say that guests should be able to put up with that, but invitation wording is not about mapping out the family tree or "honoring" anyone other than the guests (not the parents), so "the late" really doesn't belong at all. Programs rather than invitations are a more appropriate place to give deceased loved ones tributes.

I disagree entirely. It's in no way confusing to list parents -- it's two or three lines, and people can manage to read that -- and it's not even remotely "inconsiderate" to mention "the late" on an invite. It tells people a salient fact (that one parent is dead) and gives them a heads-up not to mention it.

Yes, programmes are the place for tributes. But "son of" isn't a tribute, it's a statement of fact.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because the only people who should be listed on an invitation of any kind, wedding or no, are the hosts and honorees. A deceased parent is neither.

MandyMost · January 2014

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:
Joe Smith,
son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Actually, it's less confusing and just more considerate of guests not to mention "the late" at all on an invitation.

You can say that guests should be able to put up with that, but invitation wording is not about mapping out the family tree or "honoring" anyone other than the guests (not the parents), so "the late" really doesn't belong at all. Programs rather than invitations are a more appropriate place to give deceased loved ones tributes.

I disagree entirely. It's in no way confusing to list parents -- it's two or three lines, and people can manage to read that -- and it's not even remotely "inconsiderate" to mention "the late" on an invite. It tells people a salient fact (that one parent is dead) and gives them a heads-up not to mention it.

Yes, programmes are the place for tributes. But "son of" isn't a tribute, it's a statement of fact.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because the only people who should be listed on an invitation of any kind, wedding or no, are the hosts and honorees. A deceased parent is neither.

By this statement, it's also completely inappropriate to list the "son of...." statement at all, according to you. The groom's parents are neither the hosts, nor the honorees.

Jen4948 · January 2014

MandyMost said:

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

Jen4948 said:

HisGirlFriday13 said:

photokitty said:

it's fine to say "son of".
Put "son of Mr. Groom'sDadFirstName LastName" do not list the deceased mother as she is not a host at the wedding.
GL!

Neither is the father of the groom, based on OP. It's only a faux pas to list deceased parents when you're trying to pass them off as hosts (dead people do not host events).

The fact the MOG is dead doesn't make her less of his mother, it just makes her dead.

You'd write:
Joe Smith,
son of John Smith and the late Mary Smith

Actually, it's less confusing and just more considerate of guests not to mention "the late" at all on an invitation.

You can say that guests should be able to put up with that, but invitation wording is not about mapping out the family tree or "honoring" anyone other than the guests (not the parents), so "the late" really doesn't belong at all. Programs rather than invitations are a more appropriate place to give deceased loved ones tributes.

I disagree entirely. It's in no way confusing to list parents -- it's two or three lines, and people can manage to read that -- and it's not even remotely "inconsiderate" to mention "the late" on an invite. It tells people a salient fact (that one parent is dead) and gives them a heads-up not to mention it.

Yes, programmes are the place for tributes. But "son of" isn't a tribute, it's a statement of fact.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, because the only people who should be listed on an invitation of any kind, wedding or no, are the hosts and honorees. A deceased parent is neither.

By this statement, it's also completely inappropriate to list the "son of...." statement at all, according to you. The groom's parents are neither the hosts, nor the honorees.

@CMGragain would be among the first to agree with you, because she's always quick to point out that it's "not traditional."

If the groom's parents are the hosts (and sometimes they are), their names should be listed after the bride's parents and before "request the honour/pleasure."

ashleyep · January 2014

A lot of people do the "son of" thing. In fact, my mom is mad at me that I'm *not* doing it for FI's parents - she thinks they'll be offended. Whatever.

It's not traditional, it's probably not "right" by etiquette, but it's one of those victim less crime type of things. There's no harm in it.

CMGragain · January 2014

Mr. and Mrs. Brides Parents
request the honour of your presence
at the marriage of their daughter
Bride
to
Mr.Groom

Saturday, the twenty-third of June
two thousand twelve
half after four o'clock
First Church
New Vernon, New Jersey

singinchick13 · January 2014

"half after four o'clock" ? Is this actually an expression? I've never heard of it. Sounds a bit strange and grammatically incorrect to me. Anyone else have some insight on this?

CMGragain · January 2014

This is a phrase that is only used on wedding invitations. You will not hear it in conversation. "half past the hour" is reserved for writing funeral invitations. (Emily Post)

theartistformerlyknownas · January 2014

I just have to say that it's hilarious to me how seriously people take some of these "rules," especially all the British ones. Didn't we have a revolution to get out of spelling things with extra u's?

I think the value in adding the groom's parents' names (all of them) will help people who may not be immediately familiar with the B&G's names but know the parents better, like extended family or their friends. "Who the heck is John Smith? Oh yeah, Gary's kid." As long as they're not at the top "requesting the HONOUR of your presence" it's not implied that they're hosting.

Bottom line, spell it out however you - and to the best of your knowledge, your guests - will be comfortable and understand. And FWIW, I've never heard of a single person in real life claiming to be offended or confused at how the date, time, or "honor" were spelled.

pinkshorts27 · January 2014

Lolo8383 said:

I just have to say that it's hilarious to me how seriously people take some of these "rules," especially all the British ones. Didn't we have a revolution to get out of spelling things with extra u's?

I think the value in adding the groom's parents' names (all of them) will help people who may not be immediately familiar with the B&G's names but know the parents better, like extended family or their friends. "Who the heck is John Smith? Oh yeah, Gary's kid." As long as they're not at the top "requesting the HONOUR of your presence" it's not implied that they're hosting.

Bottom line, spell it out however you - and to the best of your knowledge, your guests - will be comfortable and understand. And FWIW, I've never heard of a single person in real life claiming to be offended or confused at how the date, time, or "honor" were spelled.

CMGragain for their help. I wouldn't ask if I didn't care or take it seriously.

theartistformerlyknownas · January 2014

blueeyes90 said:

Lolo8383 said:

I just have to say that it's hilarious to me how seriously people take some of these "rules," especially all the British ones. Didn't we have a revolution to get out of spelling things with extra u's?

I think the value in adding the groom's parents' names (all of them) will help people who may not be immediately familiar with the B&G's names but know the parents better, like extended family or their friends. "Who the heck is John Smith? Oh yeah, Gary's kid." As long as they're not at the top "requesting the HONOUR of your presence" it's not implied that they're hosting.

Bottom line, spell it out however you - and to the best of your knowledge, your guests - will be comfortable and understand. And FWIW, I've never heard of a single person in real life claiming to be offended or confused at how the date, time, or "honor" were spelled.

CMGragain for their help. I wouldn't ask if I didn't care or take it seriously.

I'm sorry if I came off as if I was mocking you caring about it! I do think it's funny when people are aghast at the idea of not spelling honour with a u, but I don't mean to imply you shouldn't or don't take your invitations seriously.

CMGragain · January 2014

It really doesn't matter if honour or favour are spelled with a "u" , or not. I always use that spelling because it is traditional for wedding invitations, but it isn't a terrible faux pas to spell it modern style.
I do dislike the "son of" line, because it implies that the groom is not known to the family. This is an insult to the groom. Anyone who does not know the family well enough to know the bride and groom shouldn't be invited to the wedding at all. It is not an honor to be named on the wedding invitation, and it clutters it up.

Invite Wording

Re: Invite Wording

Choose Another Board

Search Boards