Wedding Invitations & Paper

Recent Widow

2»

Re: Recent Widow

  • LtPowers said:
    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?


    Well,  I wouldn't consider it rude if someone did use a title but I'd just really prefer to not. I wouldn't get mad if someone did though.

    I don't know why I don't like it. I grew up in a very informal town. Maybe that's it? The formality issue? Even many of our teachers in high school went by a nickname or their first name. But I'd much rather have someone call me by my first name than Mrs/Ms/Miss lastname. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    edited October 2016
    LtPowers said:
    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?


    You're reading something into my post that wasn't there at all. I have never at any time said that I object to titles, so where are you getting that from?

    What I said was, and all etiquette experts agree with this, is that it is up to the person being addressed what name and title, if any, they should be addressed as, and when this is known to the person addressing them, it is rude to address them by another name and/or title -- even a "traditional" one.

    For example, Miss Manners (an etiquette expert) has held that how someone is correctly addressed is up to that person -- even if it is not in accordance with "tradition." You will find that in her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Manners. To paraphrase what she says, someone may insist on being called "Mrs. Jane Smith" whether you, I, or Miss Manners agrees with it or not. Well, it's up to her -- and it's rude to force "Mrs. John Smith" on her if that's not how she prefers to be addressed.

    [Deleted User]
  • @Jen4948 I believe she was asking me that since I was the one who said I didn't like titles. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    Ironring said:
    @Jen4948 I believe she was asking me that since I was the one who said I didn't like titles. 
    She quoted my post, @Ironring.
  • @Jen4948 very true. But you were responding to someone else who was responding to my post about not liking titles. The context makes sense that she was asking me. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    Regardless of who she was quoting, my post stands. It is rude to use a form of address for someone who is on the record as preferring not to be addressed by it - regardless of "tradition."
  • Of course. I'm not debating your point. And neither was she. She was asking why I don't like titles out of curiosity. I answered above. 
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    Ironring said:
    Of course. I'm not debating your point. And neither was she. She was asking why I don't like titles out of curiosity. I answered above. 
    Ok.
  • LtPowersLtPowers Upstate New York member
    Knottie Warrior 100 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper
    Jen4948 said:

    You're reading something into my post that wasn't there at all. I have never at any time said that I object to titles, so where are you getting that from?

    What I said was, and all etiquette experts agree with this, is that it is up to the person being addressed what name and title, if any, they should be addressed as, and when this is known to the person addressing them, it is rude to address them by another name and/or title -- even a "traditional" one.

    For example, Miss Manners (an etiquette expert) has held that how someone is correctly addressed is up to that person -- even if it is not in accordance with "tradition." You will find that in her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Manners. To paraphrase what she says, someone may insist on being called "Mrs. Jane Smith" whether you, I, or Miss Manners agrees with it or not. Well, it's up to her -- and it's rude to force "Mrs. John Smith" on her if that's not how she prefers to be addressed.

    My sincere apologies. I wasn't paying close enough attention to whom had said what.

    Though I find it interesting that you've both assumed I'm female.  ;)

    I agree with your description of Miss Manners' policy, but I don't see any indication that it extends to the omission of titles entirely. If someone were quite insistent about it, I suppose it's little harm to accommodate them, but as @CMGragain pointed out, it grates to omit markers of respect on formal correspondence. In the specific case of titles, one can specify which title one prefers, but requesting that one never be used is to insist on a specific level of informality. And that's rude in itself.


  • LtPowersLtPowers Upstate New York member
    Knottie Warrior 100 Love Its 100 Comments Name Dropper
    edited October 2016
    charlotte989875 said:

    I have a good friend that hates being called Dr. So when I invited him to my wedding I didn't use any title (because I know he heated them). Would it have been better to make my guest less comfortable by insisting on using his "correct" title when I know he does not prefer that? 
    Well, no; no one is required to use "Dr.", but the correct default in this case would be "Mr."

    It would be interesting to get Miss Manners' take on the specific case of disliking all titles. What would one do in a situation where one has a list of people identified by Title and Lastname, such as a faculty or staff directory? Would one exclude just the one person's title and leave just a last name?
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    LtPowers said:
    Jen4948 said:

    You're reading something into my post that wasn't there at all. I have never at any time said that I object to titles, so where are you getting that from?

    What I said was, and all etiquette experts agree with this, is that it is up to the person being addressed what name and title, if any, they should be addressed as, and when this is known to the person addressing them, it is rude to address them by another name and/or title -- even a "traditional" one.

    For example, Miss Manners (an etiquette expert) has held that how someone is correctly addressed is up to that person -- even if it is not in accordance with "tradition." You will find that in her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Manners. To paraphrase what she says, someone may insist on being called "Mrs. Jane Smith" whether you, I, or Miss Manners agrees with it or not. Well, it's up to her -- and it's rude to force "Mrs. John Smith" on her if that's not how she prefers to be addressed.

    My sincere apologies. I wasn't paying close enough attention to whom had said what.

    Though I find it interesting that you've both assumed I'm female.  ;)

    I agree with your description of Miss Manners' policy, but I don't see any indication that it extends to the omission of titles entirely. If someone were quite insistent about it, I suppose it's little harm to accommodate them, but as @CMGragain pointed out, it grates to omit markers of respect on formal correspondence. In the specific case of titles, one can specify which title one prefers, but requesting that one never be used is to insist on a specific level of informality. And that's rude in itself.


    Sorry, but I disagree when it comes to titles. It's simply not up to anyone else whether one uses a title, or what title, no matter how much it grates. The grating is something everyone who wants to address someone in a "traditional" or any other manner who doesn't care to be addressed that way needs to get over.
    charlotte989875MairePoppy
  • Jen4948Jen4948 Houston member
    10000 Comments Seventh Anniversary 500 Love Its 25 Answers
    LtPowers said:
    charlotte989875 said:

    I have a good friend that hates being called Dr. So when I invited him to my wedding I didn't use any title (because I know he heated them). Would it have been better to make my guest less comfortable by insisting on using his "correct" title when I know he does not prefer that? 
    Well, no; no one is required to use "Dr.", but the correct default in this case would be "Mr."

    It would be interesting to get Miss Manners' take on the specific case of disliking all titles. What would one do in a situation where one has a list of people identified by Title and Lastname, such as a faculty or staff directory? Would one exclude just the one person's title and leave just a last name?
    Yes. Or they could get first names to go with the last names.
  • LtPowers said:
    Jen4948 said:

    You're reading something into my post that wasn't there at all. I have never at any time said that I object to titles, so where are you getting that from?

    What I said was, and all etiquette experts agree with this, is that it is up to the person being addressed what name and title, if any, they should be addressed as, and when this is known to the person addressing them, it is rude to address them by another name and/or title -- even a "traditional" one.

    For example, Miss Manners (an etiquette expert) has held that how someone is correctly addressed is up to that person -- even if it is not in accordance with "tradition." You will find that in her Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Manners. To paraphrase what she says, someone may insist on being called "Mrs. Jane Smith" whether you, I, or Miss Manners agrees with it or not. Well, it's up to her -- and it's rude to force "Mrs. John Smith" on her if that's not how she prefers to be addressed.

    My sincere apologies. I wasn't paying close enough attention to whom had said what.

    Though I find it interesting that you've both assumed I'm female.  ;)

    I agree with your description of Miss Manners' policy, but I don't see any indication that it extends to the omission of titles entirely. If someone were quite insistent about it, I suppose it's little harm to accommodate them, but as @CMGragain pointed out, it grates to omit markers of respect on formal correspondence. In the specific case of titles, one can specify which title one prefers, but requesting that one never be used is to insist on a specific level of informality. And that's rude in itself.


    Stuck in box.............

    To the bolded, is this not accurate? My apologies. Assumed based on typical demographics of wedding planning forums. 
This discussion has been closed.
Choose Another Board
Search Boards