Wedding Etiquette Forum

the mind f?@! that is addressing invitations

lilacck28lilacck28 member
First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
edited January 2015 in Wedding Etiquette Forum
I'm sure there have been TONS of posts on this. I think I've probably read some but... It's late and I'm lazy and don't feel like searching through the forums for them. 

I'm working on addressing my invitations. I'm going to use Minted's addressing services. The design for my invites uses a large. pretty , cursive  font for the first line/ names, and a smaller printed font for all the other lines.  It does not appear that I can change the size of the font. This creates some space issues. 

Issue number 1:
Ideally, for married couples I'd like to do something like: Mrs. Jane Doe and Mr. John Doe, but sometimes including both last names does not fit on one line. My parents for example: Dr. Four AndNiness and Mrs. Sevenss AndNiness. Two nine-letter last names do not fit. 

I've done some quick online browsing (plus all the invitation knottie posts I've skimmed) and most sources seem to shorten my preferred "Mrs. Jane Doe and Mr. Jane Doe" with  "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" 

Yet, that seems very odd to me. Then you have Mrs. or Ms. in front of John. What's wrong with using "Mr. John and Mrs. Jane Doe"  or "Mrs. Jane and Mr. John Doe"? I vaguely remember some etiquette rule says that you should not separate a man's first name from his last but why does that matter when it's perfectly fine to separate a woman's first name from her last? And doesn't that rule contradict the "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" adaptation too? 

(note: I know I could use the traditional Mr. and Mrs. John Doe to save a lot of space . I don't want to, and I'm not going to.)

Issue number 2:

Unmarried couples/ married couple with different last names: 

If I do names on separate lines, which is often suggested for unmarried couples or when the wife does not take husband's last name, or simply to save space, then the name on line two looks quite diminutive. I don't care about kids looking like second class citizens (I joke, sort of), but I do not want any member of a couple to look like one. If possible, I'd like to stay semi-formal...(i.e. using titles-- Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr.) but if I have to, I think I will ignore titles or I will use the nickname (Matt instead of Matthew... the horror!) on some invitations in favor of having both couples names on the first line. Most of the names of my unmarried friends in relationships seem to fit on the first line without doing that though. (yay!)


Basically, I know what I'm proposing for issue number 1 and 2 is against etiquette. But.. are these breaches actually offensive to anyone? Do I really need to feel guilty about this? 

Issue number 3:
I would like to address people based on their preferences. Prefer Ms? cool. Mrs? fine. Dr? Of course.  But how am I supposed to know for married non doctor women?? My understanding is that "Ms." is always safest/ less likely to offend. (I think most people of my acquaintance are liberal feminists, but maybe not all of them? Read: older generation? But they might be too?) 


Re: the mind f?@! that is addressing invitations

  • lilacck28 said:
    I'm sure there have been TONS of posts on this. I think I've probably read some but... It's late and I'm lazy and don't feel like searching through the forums for them. 

    I'm working on addressing my invitations. I'm going to use Minted's addressing services. The design for my invites uses a large. pretty , cursive  font for the first line/ names, and a smaller printed font for all the other lines.  It does not appear that I can change the size of the font. This creates some space issues. 

    Issue number 1:
    Ideally, for married couples I'd like to do something like: Mrs. Jane Doe and Mr. John Doe, but sometimes including both last names does not fit on one line. My parents for example: Dr. Four AndNiness and Mrs. Sevenss AndNiness. Two nine-letter last names do not fit. 

    I've done some quick online browsing (plus all the invitation knottie posts I've skimmed) and most sources seem to shorten my preferred "Mrs. Jane Doe and Mr. Jane Doe" with  "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" 

    Yet, that seems very odd to me. Then you have Mrs. or Ms. in front of John. What's wrong with using "Mr. John and Mrs. Jane Doe"  or "Mrs. Jane and Mr. John Doe"? I vaguely remember some etiquette rule says that you should not separate a man's first name from his last but why does that matter when it's perfectly fine to separate a woman's first name from her last? And doesn't that rule contradict the "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" adaptation too? 

    (note: I know I could use the traditional Mr. and Mrs. John Doe to save a lot of space . I don't want to, and I'm not going to.)

    Issue number 2:

    Unmarried couples/ married couple with different last names: 

    If I do names on separate lines, which is often suggested for unmarried couples or when the wife does not take husband's last name, or simply to save space, then the name on line two looks quite diminutive. I don't care about kids looking like second class citizens (I joke, sort of), but I do not want any member of a couple to look like one. If possible, I'd like to stay semi-formal...(i.e. using titles-- Mr. Ms. Mrs. Dr.) but if I have to, I think I will ignore titles or I will use the nickname (Matt instead of Matthew... the horror!) on some invitations in favor of having both couples names on the first line. Most of the names of my unmarried friends in relationships seem to fit on the first line without doing that though. (yay!)


    Basically, I know what I'm proposing for issue number 1 and 2 is against etiquette. But.. are these breaches actually offensive to anyone? Do I really need to feel guilty about this? 

    Issue number 3:
    I would like to address people based on their preferences. Prefer Ms? cool. Mrs? fine. Dr? Of course.  But how am I supposed to know for married non doctor women?? My understanding is that "Ms." is always safest/ less likely to offend. (I think most people of my acquaintance are liberal feminists, but maybe not all of them? Read: older generation? But they might be too?) 


    First problem, I would contact minted, and explain the issue. Maybe they can fix it for you.

    Married couples should be on the same line and separated by "and" regardless if either kept their own last name or not.  You should also address people how they want to be addressed, not how you want to do it. Many couples prefer Mr. and Mrs. John Doe and you should respect that. Likewise, people that have different last names should be Ms. Jane Jones and Mr. John Doe.

    The not separating a man's first name from his last name came from olden times when women had to change their names. You shouldn't separate a man or a woman's first name from their last name. 

    If you don't know how someone wants to be addressed, you ask them. 

    Unmarried couples are on separate lines without an "and" between the names. 
    image
    image

    image


  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited January 2015

    First problem, I would contact minted, and explain the issue. Maybe they can fix it for you.

    Married couples should be on the same line and separated by "and" regardless if either kept their own last name or not.  You should also address people how they want to be addressed, not how you want to do it. Many couples prefer Mr. and Mrs. John Doe and you should respect that. Likewise, people that have different last names should be Ms. Jane Jones and Mr. John Doe.

    The not separating a man's first name from his last name came from olden times when women had to change their names. You shouldn't separate a man or a woman's first name from their last name. 

    If you don't know how someone wants to be addressed, you ask them. 

    Unmarried couples are on separate lines without an "and" between the names. 



    STUCK IN BOX

    First Bolded: thank you! My mistake. 

    About Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow... if I know for a fact that a woman would prefer that, then yes, I would most definitely respect her wishes and address her as such. (But I don't know this for a fact about anyone. I'll ask my parents, my grandparents, and FI's parents for their thoughts on relatives I don't know so well.)  

    Second bolded: "Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow" separates a woman from her first name entirely, so... why is that preferable to separating a man from his last name with the first name of his wife with "Mr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Schmow?  

    Third bolded: Do people really call 50+ women to ask what they would prefer to be addressed as? 

    Fourth bolded: I know that's the proper etiquette. But.. seems wrong. You have to be on a second line just because you aren't married? Some people still aren't allowed to be married... some people choose not to. I don't know. It seems like a judgement about their relationship. Who does it offend to put unmarried couples together on the first line together, separated by "and"? The married couples who feel they've earned that privilege? I don't think it undermines the institution of marriage to put unmarried couples on the first line of an invitation. 


    Still wondering--- do these "breaches" of etiquette actually offend people? I value etiquette rules because they make people/ guests feel comfortable and respected... but some of these addressing rules would seem to do the opposite. 


    Anyway, thanks for your response, huskypuppy! (I mean that sincerely!) 
  • lilacck28 said:

    First problem, I would contact minted, and explain the issue. Maybe they can fix it for you.

    Married couples should be on the same line and separated by "and" regardless if either kept their own last name or not.  You should also address people how they want to be addressed, not how you want to do it. Many couples prefer Mr. and Mrs. John Doe and you should respect that. Likewise, people that have different last names should be Ms. Jane Jones and Mr. John Doe.

    The not separating a man's first name from his last name came from olden times when women had to change their names. You shouldn't separate a man or a woman's first name from their last name. 

    If you don't know how someone wants to be addressed, you ask them. 

    Unmarried couples are on separate lines without an "and" between the names. 



    STUCK IN BOX

    First Bolded: thank you! My mistake. 

    About Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow... if I know for a fact that a woman would prefer that, then yes, I would most definitely respect her wishes and address her as such. (But I don't know this for a fact about anyone. I'll ask my parents, my grandparents, and FI's parents for their thoughts on relatives I don't know so well.)  

    Second bolded: "Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow" separates a woman from her first name entirely, so... why is that preferable to separating a man from his last name with the first name of his wife with "Mr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Schmow?  

    Third bolded: Do people really call 50+ women to ask what they would prefer to be addressed as? 

    Fourth bolded: I know that's the proper etiquette. But.. seems wrong. You have to be on a second line just because you aren't married? Some people still aren't allowed to be married... some people choose not to. I don't know. It seems like a judgement about their relationship. Who does it offend to put unmarried couples together on the first line together, separated by "and"? The married couples who feel they've earned that privilege? I don't think it undermines the institution of marriage to put unmarried couples on the first line of an invitation. 


    Still wondering--- do these "breaches" of etiquette actually offend people? I value etiquette rules because they make people/ guests feel comfortable and respected... but some of these addressing rules would seem to do the opposite. 


    Anyway, thanks for your response, huskypuppy! (I mean that sincerely!) 
    There is no tried and true rule for the "Mr. And Mrs. John Doe" situation, but one that we're using is age based. To be honest, outside of very old-school and traditional couples, few people will actually be deeply offended by "Mr John and Mrs. Jane" Doe if that is your preference.

    This is our plan:
    • I know all of my under-35 female friends HATE that being called Mrs. John Doe. Like downright find it offensive (myself included). So I'm not using it on them at all.  It'll Mr John and Mrs. Jane Doe.
    • Those between 35 and 50 seem to be case-by case or not care. In this situation we are deferring to the invite-er (me, FI, or our families) on how they want them addressed unless we already know someone's preference. 
    • The default for the over 50 is Mr. and Mrs. John Doe unless we already know otherwise. This is primarily because these are my parents friends/siblings, and my mom likes to be traditional. 
    • Save the dates are all "Jane and John Doe" or "The Doe Family" when they have kids.
    I'm sure we'll offend someone a teensy tiny bit somehow using the above method but you can't win every battle.  I know I HATE being referred to as "Mrs. John Doe" (thank you church for already addressing our mail this way...), but my FI hates the idea of me being called "Mrs. Jane Doe" in formal letters since it's not traditional. So even for us, there's never a perfect solution.
  • We have a lot of female family members that chose not to change their name when they got married.  Thus, everyone is this:

    Mrs. Jane and Mr. John Doe

    Mrs. Jane Smith and Mr. John Doe



    ********************************************

    Daisypath Wedding tickers

     

    Daisypath Anniversary tickers

  • lilacck28 said:
    STUCK IN BOX

    First Bolded: thank you! My mistake. 

    About Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow... if I know for a fact that a woman would prefer that, then yes, I would most definitely respect her wishes and address her as such. (But I don't know this for a fact about anyone. I'll ask my parents, my grandparents, and FI's parents for their thoughts on relatives I don't know so well.)  

    Second bolded: "Mr. and Mrs. Joe Schmow" separates a woman from her first name entirely, so... why is that preferable to separating a man from his last name with the first name of his wife with "Mr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Schmow?  

    Third bolded: Do people really call 50+ women to ask what they would prefer to be addressed as? 

    Fourth bolded: I know that's the proper etiquette. But.. seems wrong. You have to be on a second line just because you aren't married? Some people still aren't allowed to be married... some people choose not to. I don't know. It seems like a judgement about their relationship. Who does it offend to put unmarried couples together on the first line together, separated by "and"? The married couples who feel they've earned that privilege? I don't think it undermines the institution of marriage to put unmarried couples on the first line of an invitation. 


    Still wondering--- do these "breaches" of etiquette actually offend people? I value etiquette rules because they make people/ guests feel comfortable and respected... but some of these addressing rules would seem to do the opposite. 


    Anyway, thanks for your response, huskypuppy! (I mean that sincerely!) 
    Etiquette fills a number of roles.

    Yes, it's about making people feel comfortable and respected. But part of that is in formalizing certain rules so that people can comfortably and reliably follow them without having to re-invent the wheel every time they host a function or encounter a stranger.

    Are these rules arbitrary? Yes, often they are. "How do you do" is practically meaningless as a literal phrase, but it's still the polite way to greet someone to whom you've just been introduced. There's no compelling reason for forks to be placed on the left whilst spoons are placed on the right, but we do it so that those setting the table don't have to wonder every time.

    Likewise, the custom of addressing persons has longstanding rules. These were put into place so that you didn't have to go around asking everyone precisely how they wished to be addressed. They are not egalitarian in the slightest, because they are very old.

    Etiquette mavens have made allowances for modern sensibilities in modifying the traditional forms. And yes, individuals do get to decide how they wish to be addressed, and those preferences should be adhered to, to the extent possible. But along with this flexibility comes the responsibility to graciously accept the traditional forms should they be encountered. Unless we're going to go back to asking everyone to carry calling cards stating their preferred forms, we must all be understanding.

    So long as the tradition is for a lady to take her husband's surname, then the tradition in addressing the couple will remain that his given name should be adjacent to it. It is not egalitarian in the slightest, but neither is the tradition of women taking their husbands' surnames; the two go hand-in-hand.

    Regarding the placement of couples on separate lines, I assure you no one should take offense at being on the second line versus the first. (Note that when you do this, the lady comes first. Not egalitarian, but again, there must be some rule, and that's the one we use.) Even a married couple may be named on separate lines if there's insufficient room on a single line, though you still must use "and" (to begin the second line).

    Regarding the use of "and", it is a mark of societal respect for the institution of marriage accorded to those who have taken the step of having their union formalized in society. In the case where marriage is not an option, a formal commitment ceremony of similar solemnity could stand in; no one should begrudge a (for instance) same-sex couple that.


    Powers  &8^]

  • LtPowers said:
    So long as the tradition is for a lady to take her husband's surname, then the tradition in addressing the couple will remain that his given name should be adjacent to it. It is not egalitarian in the slightest, but neither is the tradition of women taking their husbands' surnames; the two go hand-in-hand.


    Tradition does not mean it must be done though, and traditions change. So no, it will not necessarily remain tradition forever. Many women now find it offensive to be called Mrs. John Doe. "It's traditional" is not an excuse--it's laziness and an acceptance of a relatively minor form of sexism that dates from the age where "Mrs" was the highest title most women could achieve, and their job was maintaining the household of their husband (in which case, Mrs. John Doe made perfect sense). Now that most women have jobs and are as educated as their husbands, etiquette has been shifting to allow for the woman's first name to also be included.

    There are many things that were traditional in society (slavery, women not having the right to vote, certain religions being persecuted) which have fallen by the wayside, or changed over the years. Why? Because social norms and peoples feelings changed, which led to the tradition changing. Sometimes these changes occurred loudly, sometimes quietly. But traditions are not forever. They move, they shift, they evolve. And based on what I have seen, this tradition is in fact changing. And I will "quietly" do my part by making sure my female friends and loved ones have their name included in their invite. 
  • Please don't do Mr John and Mrs Jane Doe. His name is not Mr John, and nobody's title should be chopped in half like that, man or woman. TRADITION will tell you that a woman's TITLE (not her name) is Mrs John Doe. (But I totally get not wanting to just eliminate a woman's name from her title and don't blame ya there.) But if it were reversed, I wouldn't want to be referred to as "Mrs Lolo and Mr Hubs Lastname." 

    If you can't fit Ms Jane Doe and Mr John Doe on one line, that's a problem for Minted to solve. If they can't solve it, you should address those few invitations by hand.

    image
    image
  • @lolo883 I may do that (address a few by hand) but... I've asked around a bit since posting this. Relevant parties prefer Dr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Crane to 2 separate lines or Dr. and Mrs Joe Crane. So if Dr. Joe prefers it, that's what I'm going with. Others prefer simply Joe and Jane Crane. (no Titles) so... I might go with that too. Basically, I'm taking it case by case and trying not to stress about this thing that, knowing my group, pretty much no one is concerned with (except there are many that would HATE to be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. Joe Crane.)  
  • marie2785 said:
    LtPowers said:
    So long as the tradition is for a lady to take her husband's surname, then the tradition in addressing the couple will remain that his given name should be adjacent to it. It is not egalitarian in the slightest, but neither is the tradition of women taking their husbands' surnames; the two go hand-in-hand.


    Tradition does not mean it must be done though, and traditions change. So no, it will not necessarily remain tradition forever. Many women now find it offensive to be called Mrs. John Doe. "It's traditional" is not an excuse--it's laziness and an acceptance of a relatively minor form of sexism that dates from the age where "Mrs" was the highest title most women could achieve, and their job was maintaining the household of their husband (in which case, Mrs. John Doe made perfect sense). Now that most women have jobs and are as educated as their husbands, etiquette has been shifting to allow for the woman's first name to also be included.

    There are many things that were traditional in society (slavery, women not having the right to vote, certain religions being persecuted) which have fallen by the wayside, or changed over the years. Why? Because social norms and peoples feelings changed, which led to the tradition changing. Sometimes these changes occurred loudly, sometimes quietly. But traditions are not forever. They move, they shift, they evolve. And based on what I have seen, this tradition is in fact changing. And I will "quietly" do my part by making sure my female friends and loved ones have their name included in their invite. 
    I appreciate what you're saying, but I'm afraid it doesn't have much to do with what I wrote. However, I do bear some responsibility because I wasn't entirely clear; for that, I apologize.

    My intended point was that the rule (not tradition) that one doesn't separate a gentleman's surname from his forename will continue to be necessary so long as women continue to take their husbands' surnames. The rule is not limited to men; a lady's forename and maiden name ought not to be separated, either, but it's still a rare case where the opportunity for such separation arises. Were the situation to reverse, and it became traditional for men to take their wives' surnames, then the rule would apply just as much to the ladies as it does now for gentlemen.

    In no way was I suggesting that the tradition of taking a husband's surname should be perpetual; but so long as the practice exists, there are certain rules that ought to be followed in conjunction with it.


    Powers  &8^]

  • "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe. Is grammatically incorrect as well as not socially correct.

    Ms. or Mrs. can both be correct, but ask which the woman prefers.

    For long names, putting one person's whole title and name and other person's whole title and name on the next says they are married.

    Separate lines with no "and", unmarried. So:
    Doctor James Quackenbush and
    Colonel Annabelle Kadiddlehopper

    Is better than scrambling titles to save space on one line.

  • You don't know addressing envelope pain if you do not have relatives in Greenland, a place with no states or zipcodes, where most town names except the Capital are long.

    Ittoqqorortoormiit, Kalaallit Nunaat. Is representative for town, country.
  • lilacck28 said:

    @lolo883 I may do that (address a few by hand) but... I've asked around a bit since posting this. Relevant parties prefer Dr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Crane to 2 separate lines or Dr. and Mrs Joe Crane. So if Dr. Joe prefers it, that's what I'm going with. Others prefer simply Joe and Jane Crane. (no Titles) so... I might go with that too. Basically, I'm taking it case by case and trying not to stress about this thing that, knowing my group, pretty much no one is concerned with (except there are many that would HATE to be referred to as Mr. and Mrs. Joe Crane.)  

    *******************
    We did case by case addressing too. As far as I am concerned, the most polite thing is to address someone the way that they wish. Trumps etiquette rules, which are really default settings.

    Difficult are the people you don't know, often guests of parents or SO who d not pay attention to the preferences of people they see and talk to regularly.

    Gee, I don't know what she likes to be called, I have only known her for 12 years.
  • Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...

    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
  • rcher912 said:
    Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...

    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
    Because titles are different than names. As a woman who kept her name I would rather be called Mr. and Mrs. John Doe than Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe. Because my name is not Jane Doe, it's Jane Smith. If someone calls me Mrs. Doe, eh whatever, I am married to Mr. Doe, so it doesn't bother me. However, my first name should not go with his last name because it's not correct.

    Now someone who changed their name to their husband's name, may feel differently. From what I recall, most married couples sent back their RSVP with Mr. and Mrs. Husband Name, and I know many of my married friends prefer it. On the other hand, no woman I know prefers Mrs. John Doe if it's mail only for her (like a shower invite for example).

    I would prefer Ms. Jane Smith and Mr. John Doe, because those are our correct names and titles. 
    image
    image

    image


  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015
    rcher912 said:
    Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...

    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
    I am clearly not tied closely to address etiquette, but I think Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe is ... weird. Because then you have "Mrs." right next to "John". (I know that it is supposed to be two sets "Mr and Mrs" and "john and jane" , so the john is theoretically connected to the "Mr." but... again, in actuality, you have john sitting next to Mrs.

     I think Mrs. John is definitely more awkward than Mr. John ;)

    @Huskypuppy14
    If you kept your name, I would never think to address you as Mrs. and Mr. John Doe, or Ms. Jane and Mr. John Doe. Wouldn't make sense to me, since Doe wasn't your last name. It would definitely be Ms. Jane Smith and Mr. John Doe, or I would omit titles if space was necessary.

    BUT, since you said at one point you'd prefer "mrs. john doe" to other options,  I'm curious, would you prefer "Jane Smith and John Doe" (no titles) or "Mr. and Mrs. Doe" (technically the wrong title)?

    (I think I'm going to take my FI's last name, but my preference is to always include my first name... in whatever manifestation fits. Or the "Lastname Family" [ie, no one has a first name listed] would also be okay)
  • lilacck28 said:
    rcher912 said:
    Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...

    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
    I am clearly not tied closely to address etiquette, but I think Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe is ... weird. Because then you have "Mrs." right next to "John". (I know that it is supposed to be two sets "Mr and Mrs" and "john and jane" , so the john is theoretically connected to the "Mr." but... again, in actuality, you have john sitting next to Mrs.

     I think Mrs. John is definitely more awkward than Mr. John ;)

    @Huskypuppy14
    If you kept your name, I would never think to address you as Mrs. and Mr. John Doe, or Ms. Jane and Mr. John Doe. Wouldn't make sense to me, since Doe wasn't your last name. It would definitely be Ms. Jane Smith and Mr. John Doe, or I would omit titles if space was necessary.

    BUT, since you said at one point you'd prefer "mrs. john doe" to other options,  I'm curious, would you prefer "Jane Smith and John Doe" (no titles) or "Mr. and Mrs. Doe" (technically the wrong title)?

    (I think I'm going to take my FI's last name, but my preference is to always include my first name... in whatever manifestation fits. Or the "Lastname Family" [ie, no one has a first name listed] would also be okay)

    Yes exactly! But in the 7 months I've been married we've gotten every iteration you could imagine. Only, one friend got our names correct for Christmas cards (other than my parents and grandma).

     Everyone else put Mr. and Mrs. John Doe/ Mr. and Mrs. John Doe and Jane Smith (this one didn't bother me at all- even though it's technically incorrect)/ Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe/ The Does (this one was the worst, because it's from someone who should know better). My sister just addressed the card to me (whatever, but really?) It's like people are too lazy to do it the correct way.


    I prefer our names being correct, but if someone is going to address us together I would prefer Mr. and Mrs. John Doe to Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe, because my name isn't Jane Doe. But I don't really want to be referred by either. Putting my first name next to my husband's last name makes absolutely no sense, especially when you know I didn't change my name. But people who don't change their names sometimes will go by Mrs. Doe so that doesn't bother me as much (I hope I'm making sense).

    If people assume I took my husband's name, obviously I will give them slack, it's when you know that someone didn't change their name, but continue to address them incorrectly that pisses me off. 
    image
    image

    image


  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015



    If people assume I took my husband's name, obviously I will give them slack, it's when you know that someone didn't change their name, but continue to address them incorrectly that pisses me off. 
    Yes. That... so much. Very very rude. I also find it insulting to just... have my first name dropped, when FI get's his first name in there. I wouldn't be PISSED, or hold a grudge, but I'd have a moment of "pft. whatever. weird. stupid patriarchy" But I will certainly concede that this is not as big of a gaffe as calling someone who kept their last name by their husband's last name. Gets me pissy just thinking about it, and I"m not even planning to keep my name. As of this moment. I waffle.

    But what about being addressed on a card as "John Doe and Jane Smith" (no titles.) Would that bother you? Or is that the option you meant when you said "I'd prefer our names be correct"?
  • lilacck28 said:



    If people assume I took my husband's name, obviously I will give them slack, it's when you know that someone didn't change their name, but continue to address them incorrectly that pisses me off. 
    Yes. That... so much. Very very rude. I also find it insulting to just... have my first name dropped, when FI get's his first name in there. I wouldn't be PISSED, or hold a grudge, but I'd have a moment of "pft. whatever. weird. stupid patriarchy" But I will certainly concede that this is not as big of a gaffe as calling someone who kept their last name by their husband's last name. Gets me pissy just thinking about it, and I"m not even planning to keep my name. As of this moment. I waffle.

    But what about being addressed on a card as "John Doe and Jane Smith" (no titles.) Would that bother you? Or is that the option you meant when you said "I'd prefer our names be correct"?
    No of course I don't care. It's just tough when doing formal wedding invitations when you are technically supposed to use titles. I think this is where people get stuck, and try to shorten it.

     There is nothing wrong (IMO) with not using titles, but people may find it less formal. For STD, I think it's perfectly acceptable.
    image
    image

    image


  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015
    Agreed. But I realized after freaking out to FI at 11pm (when I wrote the original post. I was FRANTIC), that the people it will cause an issue for just won't care about the lack of title.

    The no title applies mostly people like my FI's brother and his girlfriend. She has two last names. I think she'd prefer her two last names be on there, instead of the Mr. and Ms.

    So it would look like:

    Matthew Smith & Anne Davis Jones
    2 Main Street, Apt. 5
    New York, New York 20001


     as opposed to the "correct" way:

    Mr. Matthew Smith
    Ms. Anne Davis Jones
    2 Main Street, Apt. 5
    New York, New York, 20001


    Since she, and many of my guests, don't read the knot or know much about address etiquette (and this applies to my parents, and FI's parents, and grandparents, who looked at me like I was crazy when I freaked out about this, but are sticklers when it comes to most other forms of ettiquette), I think she'd be pretty insulted to be on the second line, and small. She'd read "oh, guess I'm not important" not, "I'm on the second line because I'm part of an unmarried couple"

    Plus... even though I definitely felt a twinge of "oh, but I wanted to be FANCY!" when going through this whole "I need to make it fit on the line and be respectful/ as close to the addressing etiquette I value too! AHH I CAN"T DO IT ALL!", I also realized... I am having a brunch wedding. I expect my guests to wear pretty/ put together clothes, but not a sparkly cocktail dress or even a suit if they don't want to. I  was thinking more... going to the horse races without the hat. But a nice top and slacks would do fine too. And I can't think of anyone I'd invite that wouldn't know that, even if they don't have titles on the envelope. And if someone decides to wear jeans because (no "mr." or "ms" + wedding = jeans) to them ... well. I won't notice.

    If I was doing a black tie event... my invitation would look totally different, so I wouldn't have that problem (though, why do black tie events have to have very plain invitations? I don't mean ugly. Simple is elegant and pretty... but I'd be sad if I didn't get to use pretty watercolor flowers for my invitations since those would be too informal looking. But I'm weird.)

    And if I wasn't doing a black tie event, but a dinner event... I still think my guests would equate night time wedding = slightly more formal, despite no titles. But I could be wrong.






  • rcher912 said:

    Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...


    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
    ***************
    If you look at it as a matter of grammar, the title is like a modifier, it tells you about the noun.

    Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane

    Would you say, the pretty and the ugly girl and boy?
    Awkward.
    Man and married woman John and Jane

    Man and man's wife John and Jane

    Awkward construction. That is all.
  • lilacck28 said:
    Agreed. But I realized after freaking out to FI at 11pm (when I wrote the original post. I was FRANTIC), that the people it will cause an issue for just won't care about the lack of title.

    The no title applies mostly people like my FI's brother and his girlfriend. She has two last names. I think she'd prefer her two last names be on there, instead of the Mr. and Ms.

    So it would look like:

    Matthew Smith & Anne Davis Jones
    2 Main Street, Apt. 5
    New York, New York 20001


     as opposed to the "correct" way:

    Mr. Matthew Smith
    Ms. Anne Davis Jones
    2 Main Street, Apt. 5
    New York, New York, 20001


    Since she, and many of my guests, don't read the knot or know much about address etiquette (and this applies to my parents, and FI's parents, and grandparents, who looked at me like I was crazy when I freaked out about this, but are sticklers when it comes to most other forms of ettiquette), I think she'd be pretty insulted to be on the second line, and small. She'd read "oh, guess I'm not important" not, "I'm on the second line because I'm part of an unmarried couple"

    Plus... even though I definitely felt a twinge of "oh, but I wanted to be FANCY!" when going through this whole "I need to make it fit on the line and be respectful/ as close to the addressing etiquette I value too! AHH I CAN"T DO IT ALL!", I also realized... I am having a brunch wedding. I expect my guests to wear pretty/ put together clothes, but not a sparkly cocktail dress or even a suit if they don't want to. I  was thinking more... going to the horse races without the hat. But a nice top and slacks would do fine too. And I can't think of anyone I'd invite that wouldn't know that, even if they don't have titles on the envelope. And if someone decides to wear jeans because (no "mr." or "ms" + wedding = jeans) to them ... well. I won't notice.

    If I was doing a black tie event... my invitation would look totally different, so I wouldn't have that problem (though, why do black tie events have to have very plain invitations? I don't mean ugly. Simple is elegant and pretty... but I'd be sad if I didn't get to use pretty watercolor flowers for my invitations since those would be too informal looking. But I'm weird.)

    And if I wasn't doing a black tie event, but a dinner event... I still think my guests would equate night time wedding = slightly more formal, despite no titles. But I could be wrong.


    I may have misunderstood your first post. You referred to "invites" but seem to actually have meant the envelopes, yes? So you are getting pre-printed exterior envelopes, and the template you want to use requires the initial line to be a different point size than the subsequent lines, right?

    In that case, you are correct that you cannot reasonably put individual addressees on separate lines. Frankly, I would strongly suggest choosing a different template. (I know, you have your heart set on it -- but trust me, once they go out it really doesn't matter anymore.) Aside from being frowned upon in general by the Post Office, address lines with different font sizes create precisely the problem you identify here.

    Even if the designers assume you can put a couple's names on a single line, however are you expected to add children to the address? (Their names also should not be written smaller.)

    Is the base template in any way modifiable? Is the company willing to make any changes at all?


    Powers  &8^]

  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015
    Yeah, I was referring to the outer envelopes for my invitations (though I'm not using inner envelopes). I don't believe the design is modifiable (it matches the design of my invitation.)  I could choose a different envelope design that doesn't match. I won't be inviting very many children (I'm the first of my friends to get married, and most of FI and my cousins are our age or older)... I think there will be 6 or 7 total. It didn't seem like a big deal to have them be written on the second line and smaller, but another half of a couple? That seemed awful.

    Basically, I've created a problem by going with the (free!) pretty design. I could go with the free not as pretty design. I know that. Something I'll have to contemplate... but... I'm an artist. I'm really into aesthetics. And since those aesthetics don't seem to really impact my guests' comfort...

    Did not think about it being hard for the post office to read though. It seems pretty easy to read to me. Here's the envelope design:

     image
  • Please excuse me if I missed something in the conversation, but I'm a little sick and don't currently see it...

    I know the rule is that you don't separate a man's first name from his last name, making "Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Doe" wrong.

    But I don't understand why. Why is that so bad? It keeps the titles (Mr. and Mrs./Ms.) separate from the names (John and Jane Doe), thus eliminating the awkwardness of "Mr. John" and also allows the woman to be fully represented with her name (eliminating the antiquated element of "Mrs. John Doe")

    But everybody seems so set against it. Just looking for an explanation!
    *************** If you look at it as a matter of grammar, the title is like a modifier, it tells you about the noun. Mr. and Mrs. John and Jane Would you say, the pretty and the ugly girl and boy? Awkward. Man and married woman John and Jane Man and man's wife John and Jane Awkward construction. That is all.
    THIS is one of the most helpful things I've been told on this website. Thank you. This makes sense to me, haha.

    And @huskypuppy14 I would never address you as Mrs. Jane Doe if you weren't (and I was aware!)! I do have a lot of "Mr. John Doe and Mrs Jane Smith" -- THAT I get. It was the grammar of having same names that was tripping me up.
  • lilacck28 said:
    Yeah, I was referring to the outer envelopes for my invitations (though I'm not using inner envelopes). I don't believe the design is modifiable (it matches the design of my invitation.)  I could choose a different envelope design that doesn't match. I won't be inviting very many children (I'm the first of my friends to get married, and most of FI and my cousins are our age or older)... I think there will be 6 or 7 total. It didn't seem like a big deal to have them be written on the second line and smaller, but another half of a couple? That seemed awful.

    Basically, I've created a problem by going with the (free!) pretty design. I could go with the free not as pretty design. I know that. Something I'll have to contemplate... but... I'm an artist. I'm really into aesthetics. And since those aesthetics don't seem to really impact my guests' comfort...

    Did not think about it being hard for the post office to read though. It seems pretty easy to read to me. Here's the envelope design:

     image
    I took a look at minted.com. Here, they say "Some of the designs for the decorative envelopes increase the size of the names in your address. You may need to reduce the number of characters in the name field of some addresses to make sure that the names will print well within that design." So it would seem that's a final answer.

    I do see here several examples of fairly lengthy name lines, but yours seem to be even longer.

    I'm not sure what else to say. As a last resort, you could try contacting Minted; they do invite contact about questions and special requests. You might luck out. Barring that, you will probably just have to make a decision between correctly addressing your guests and using your preferred envelope design.


    Powers  &8^]

  • huskypuppy14huskypuppy14 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015
    lilacck28 said:
    Yeah, I was referring to the outer envelopes for my invitations (though I'm not using inner envelopes). I don't believe the design is modifiable (it matches the design of my invitation.)  I could choose a different envelope design that doesn't match. I won't be inviting very many children (I'm the first of my friends to get married, and most of FI and my cousins are our age or older)... I think there will be 6 or 7 total. It didn't seem like a big deal to have them be written on the second line and smaller, but another half of a couple? That seemed awful.

    Basically, I've created a problem by going with the (free!) pretty design. I could go with the free not as pretty design. I know that. Something I'll have to contemplate... but... I'm an artist. I'm really into aesthetics. And since those aesthetics don't seem to really impact my guests' comfort...

    Did not think about it being hard for the post office to read though. It seems pretty easy to read to me. Here's the envelope design:

     image
    Oh, I wished you had posted this in the beginning. I would just scrap the minted envelopes and just get plain envelopes and address them yourself. 

    In order to address my husband and I correctly, it would be 40 characters (not including spaces). So in order to makes sure everyone's name fits properly, and they are not relegated to small font, it's best to just do them yourself.
    image
    image

    image


  • lilacck28lilacck28 member
    First Anniversary First Comment 5 Love Its First Answer
    edited February 2015
    I just imported pretty much all of my addresses into minted's system and played around with the text to see what would fit.

    There were one or two instances where I just got rid of titles (mr/ mrs) and both (full) names fit fine.

    There were also a (very) few invitations where I shortened someones name (i.e. Joe instead of Joseph, but they always go by Joe.) And then the titles and both first and last names fit. 4 times tops.

    And the places where I did  do the "incorrect" "Mr./Dr. Joe and Mrs. Jane Smith" were for 1. my parents, 2. my FI's parents, and 3. one aunt and uncle. All of whom said "what? I don't care. Do what you want, but yeah, I'd prefer my name be there." 

    And I used "Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith" for, I think, 2 invitations to older generations where both their full names and titles would not fit. 

    For almost all of my invitations "Ms. Joan Smith and Mr. John Doe" fit. 

    I did put unmarried couples together on the first line. Oh, I also often used an "&" instead of "and" which I know is incorrect. Oh well. 

    I had three invitations with children. They went on the second line. 

    I'm okay with these breaches, and I'm sure my guests will be too (I spoke/ texted with a lot of them about it, asking for preferences, etc.). Sorry guys. I hope I'm still allowed to play on the knot boards!  

    ps- I called unmarried women, and women who did not take their husband's last name "Ms." I called married women who took their husbands names "Mrs." , on the advice of my mom/ FI, except for one cousin who said she preferred Ms. I didn't ask all the other "Mrs." what they would prefer. I hope they are not offended. I know I won't actually mind being called "Mrs.", and in fact, there may be times where I like it, but logically, the inconsistency of  Miss. Mrs vs. Mr. does bug me.

  • Ultimately, of course, the decision is yours. Only you know the people you're inviting and how much offense they may take at slightly awkward addressing.

    Truth be told, most people are either unaware of, or completely inured to, impropriety when it comes to weddings -- and most such cases are far, far more serious breaches than this. I wouldn't worry about it further.


    Powers  &8^]

  • I believe I have followed ettiquette to a "t" for every other aspect of the wedding, so I feel okay. Thanks for all the help and suggestions guys!
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards