Wedding Etiquette Forum

Another question about addressing invites

So this should warrant a quick and easy answer, but I wanted to double check how to address the invitation for my cousin and her husband. My cousin is a doctor and her husband is a lawyer. Her husband's name is also followed by the suffix III. I suppose the combination of her title and his suffix are throwing me off! 

Would I address their invitation in the following way?: (Names obviously changed for privacy)

Doctor Catherine Gambone and Mr. Edward Gambone, III
123 Sesame Street
New York, New York, 12345

Thanks!
image

Re: Another question about addressing invites

  • I think adding Esq. after the III in the husband's name would be appropriate; my lawyer boss got all over me the first (and only) time I failed to add Esq. after a lawyer's name.

    As far as the address goes, I think it looks fine, but I'm not 100%.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • What's an esq?  I work for a law firm (in Canada, so I may be weird) and haven't heard of this. 
  • @loveislouder I actually googled this after my "episode," hahaha, and Google says that American lawyers are typically addressed (in addresses and such) as Mr. Bob Jones, Esq. or Ms. Diana Ross, Esq. or Mrs. Hillary Clinton, Esq.

    Esq. itself stands for Esquire.

    I don't know why that is.
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • Oh duh. I guess I could have googled it lol. My bad.  That is a little odd, but awesome. I want a cool title.
  • The only reason I ever googled it was because it was made such a big deal out of, hahaha. I don't get it either. 

    I do too. I vote we come up with a nifty title for all us Law Office Peons. :D
    Daisypath Wedding tickers
    image
  • The only reason I ever googled it was because it was made such a big deal out of, hahaha. I don't get it either. 

    I do too. I vote we come up with a nifty title for all us Law Office Peons. :D
    I'm a lawyer, and I don't get it either. I feel weird using it, so for the most part I don't. Although, sometimes I use it if writing a personal complaint letter to a business, just because I feel like they will take me more seriously if they know I'm a lawyer.
  • kat1114 said:
    The only reason I ever googled it was because it was made such a big deal out of, hahaha. I don't get it either. 

    I do too. I vote we come up with a nifty title for all us Law Office Peons. :D
    I'm a lawyer, and I don't get it either. I feel weird using it, so for the most part I don't. Although, sometimes I use it if writing a personal complaint letter to a business, just because I feel like they will take me more seriously if they know I'm a lawyer.
    This may make me seem really stupid, but I would have never put Esq. (or Esquire) as meaning someone is a lawyer.  This is seriously the first I have heard of it.

  • "Esquire" is one of the titles which is written, but not spoken aloud.  It is like " The Honorable" in Britain and Canada.
    Formally, the number is written out "John Doe, third"  but using III on the envelope is fine, too.
    httpiimgurcomTCCjW0wjpg
  • CMGragain said:
    "Esquire" is one of the titles which is written, but not spoken aloud.  It is like " The Honorable" in Britain and Canada.
    Formally, the number is written out "John Doe, third"  but using III on the envelope is fine, too.
    Thank you! This is what I thought about esquire, as well. I know it is occasionally used on legal documents, but I've never seen "esquire" on a wedding invitation so I didn't think it was necessary.

    Also, I didn't know that "third" is traditionally written out. Thank you for letting me know!
    image
  • I believe you don't put esquire on an invitation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's like how you wouldn't put MS, MD or DVM, etc on an invitation. It's used for business but not social corresponsence.
    image
    image

    image


  • I believe you don't put esquire on an invitation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's like how you wouldn't put MS, MD or DVM, etc on an invitation. It's used for business but not social corresponsence.
    I'm thinking this is right! Emily Post says the same:


    So otherwise, it looks like I have figured out how to address this properly!
    image
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards