How to word invite to not include a parent??

Re: How to word invite to not include a parent??

• ILoveBeachMusic member

  

  January 2017

  The invitation doesn't list who is paying for the wedding but rather who is hosting the wedding. If your parents and FI's mom and stepdad are performing hosting duties (being a point person for questions, greeting people as they enter the reception, receiving RSVPs) then they can and should be on the invitation. If all they are doing is providing money, they shouldn't be on the invitation.
  
  Here is an example of how it would be worded if both sets are hosting:
  
  Mr. and Mrs. John Brideslastname
                      and
  Mr. and Mrs. Robert Groomslastname
              request the pleasure of your company (or honor of your presence)
  at the marriage of
                 BrideFirstName MiddleName
                       and 
                 GroomFirstName MiddleName
  
  Saturday the twentieth of February
                      at six o'clock
                        Venue
                       address
                        city, state
  
  Reception Immediately following (if it is at the same place if different venue a separate card is needed)
  
  Sorry the spacing is wonky but you get the idea. If his parents aren't listed, the groom's last name would be included also. Honor of your presence is used if the ceremony is a house of worship while request the pleasure of your company is used if the venue is not a house of worship. This is the formal and traditional way to word an invitation.
  
   
  
  

  Report1 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  I am sorry to correct ILoveBeach Music, but if both sets of parents are on the invitation as hosts, then you do need both the bride's and the groom's last names, especially since the groom's last name would be different from his stepfather's last name.  I do agree that unless the parents are greeting guests at the reception and acting as hosts, they should not be on the invitation.  This wording names them as hosts of your wedding.
  
  Mr. and Mrs. John Brideslastname
      Mr. and Mrs. Robert Stepfather'slastname

        request the pleasure of your company

  at the marriage of

   Bride's Full Name

   and 

      Groom's Full Name

  
  Saturday, the twentieth of February
  two thousand eighteen
  

  at six o'clock
   Venue  Name 
  123 Maple Street
  Anytown, Iowa

  

  Report1 Reply
• RaeMarie7117 member

  

  January 2017

  I should be clear, they are acting as hosts AND covering costs of the wedding. His dad may be attending but is not participating or hosting at all. Thank you both for the clarification!

  

  Report2 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  RaeMarie7117 said:

  I'm a little lost on how to word my invitation.
  My mom and dad are paying for half of the wedding
  His mom and step-dad are paying for half of the wedding
  His dad is not contributing to the wedding at all and they personally don't have an amazing relationship.
  We want to make sure our parents that are contributing are on the invitation, but not his dad. How should I set up the invite??
  

  Oops!  I almost forget.  The parents are not on your invitation because they are the parents.  They are on it because they are hosting the wedding. Since your FI's father is not hosting, his name does not belong on the invitation at all.  However, if you have a ceremony program where you name the parents of the bride and groom, then he should be listed on a separate line, underneath his mother and stepfather, on the program.
  

  

  Report2 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  Call me a trouble maker, but I would not list any of the parents. I feel like this is a recipe for making people feel excluded. I get that it is all about hosting, but I think things have shifted so that many people see the listing of parents as just that ... listing of parents and not about who is hosting. I may have an unpopular opinion but that is what I'm seeing in my circle of friends.

  Report3 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  

  Report1 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  RaeMarie7117 said:

  I should be clear, they are acting as hosts AND covering costs of the wedding. His dad may be attending but is not participating or hosting at all. Thank you both for the clarification!

  Just to clarify, the invitation is not a playbill and who is paying for what has no effect on the wording.

  Report0 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  No, it just means that they aren't familiar with the conventions and meanings of correct invitation wording.
  
  If you want to honor non-hosting and deceased parents with something written, the correct places to do that are programs and wedding announcements.  The only persons honored by wedding invitations are the recipients.

  Report6 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  

  Report1 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  CMGragain said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Report1 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Your seeing this doesn't mean etiquette is changing on this. It isn't.
  
  Etiquette still upholds traditional wording, with no mentions of deceased or non-hosting parents or other relatives on invitations for the reasons we've given here and in other threads.
  
  "Being okay with" a departure from etiquette also doesn't mean this forum is "okay with" it.

  Report0 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Your seeing this doesn't mean etiquette is changing on this. It isn't.
  
  Etiquette still upholds traditional wording, with no mentions of deceased or non-hosting parents or other relatives on invitations for the reasons we've given here and in other threads.
  
  "Being okay with" a departure from etiquette also doesn't mean this forum is "okay with" it.

  
  Etiquette is meant to ensure that you are taking into consideration other peoples' needs and feelings. If a parent has died and it would mean someone to the one living, including would be the right thing to do. To leave off and hurt a family member in the name is etiquette would actually be against etiquette. Generally, I'm on the same side of etiquette as the boards but this is one piece of etiquette that I think has some wiggle room.

  Report2 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  ernursej said:

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Your seeing this doesn't mean etiquette is changing on this. It isn't.
  
  Etiquette still upholds traditional wording, with no mentions of deceased or non-hosting parents or other relatives on invitations for the reasons we've given here and in other threads.
  
  "Being okay with" a departure from etiquette also doesn't mean this forum is "okay with" it.

  
  Etiquette is meant to ensure that you are taking into consideration other peoples' needs and feelings. If a parent has died and it would mean someone to the one living, including would be the right thing to do. To leave off and hurt a family member in the name is etiquette would actually be against etiquette. Generally, I'm on the same side of etiquette as the boards but this is one piece of etiquette that I think has some wiggle room.

  Except that doing so is only taking into account the needs and feelings of the people sending the invitation -- not those receiving it, who may be confused by or have negative reactions "honorary" listings of non-hosts or deceased persons on their invitations. 
  
  Remember, the invitations are for the guests' benefit.

  Report1 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  Jen4948 said:

  Except that doing so is only taking into account the needs and feelings of the people sending the invitation -- not those receiving it, who may be confused by or have negative reactions "honorary" listings of non-hosts or deceased persons on their invitations. 
  
  Remember, the invitations are for the guests' benefit.

  I'm still sitting on the side thinking that the person closest to the deceased would trump others receiving the invitation. If it would upset wife that husband who died in the previous year is not going to be listed for 'etiquette' reasons, I would change as her feelings are important ... more important than a guest who might be wondering how the deceased could be contacted for questions about the event. For hosting questions - I've always asked the person listed on the return RSVP card.

  I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
  

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  ernursej said:

  Jen4948 said:

  Except that doing so is only taking into account the needs and feelings of the people sending the invitation -- not those receiving it, who may be confused by or have negative reactions "honorary" listings of non-hosts or deceased persons on their invitations. 
  
  Remember, the invitations are for the guests' benefit.

  I'm still sitting on the side thinking that the person closest to the deceased would trump others receiving the invitation. If it would upset wife that husband who died in the previous year is not going to be listed for 'etiquette' reasons, I would change as her feelings are important ... more important than a guest who might be wondering how the deceased could be contacted for questions about the event. For hosting questions - I've always asked the person listed on the return RSVP card.

  I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
  

  You're right, we will have to agree to disagree.
  
  Because wedding invitation wording is not about feelings, hurt or otherwise. Nobody's feelings trump anyone else's - or if they do, the guests' feelings trump everyone else's.
  
  Wedding invitations are not wedding programs. The invitations are supposed to honor the guests-not the hosts, not the couple, not their parents, not their deceased relatives.
  
  And sorry, but the invitation's purpose is to convey logistical information about a hosted event to the persons being asked to attend it -- not to deal with personal grief. Nor are financial contributions the guests' business.
  
  
  
  
  
  

  Report5 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  ernursej said:

  CMGragain said:

  The invitation wording rules have been well understood for more than a century.  It is not the parents who are on the invitation, but the HOSTS.  The invitation states WHO is inviting you to WHAT (the marriage of bride and groom), WHEN and WHERE.  That is all.  It is not the place to "list" anybody.  It is not an honor to be on a wedding invitation.
  

  
  I would agree that has been the case but the last year's worth of wedding invitations I have received included deceased parents/those not hosting. I think things are shifting and some people do see it as an honour to be listed on the wedding invite.

  Shocking!  Too bad they didn't ask The Knot before ordering invitations that are socially incorrect!  I am constantly amused by the number of brides who do not understand that the HOSTS are the ones who are inviting people to the wedding, not they, themselves.
  Some rules have not changed!  I hope you were kind enough to overlook the social faux pas on their part.
  

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Etiquette is not a matter of your personal opinion.  This is the invitations  board.  Its purpose is to help brides select and word their invitations.  Giving your personal opinion as etiquette advice is not a good idea.
  When the etiquette gurus tell me that it is OK to list a deceased person on a wedding invitation (which makes absolutely NO SENSE), then I will consider it.  Sorry, but your personal opinion (or mine, for that matter) doesn't count for much when it comes to correct wedding invitation wording.  The rules are established.  Modern wording is fine, but it must follow etiquette, which has not changed.
  Oh, and my father was died when I was 15.  Would I put his name on my wedding invitation, inviting guests from the grave?  Hell, no!
  
  
  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• kaos16 member

  

  January 2017

  Why not just use the appropriate "together with their families" wording to save yourself potential drama.

  Report5 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017

  kaos16 said:

  Why not just use the appropriate "together with their families" wording to save yourself potential drama.

  This is why it is usually used.
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  CMGragain said:

  kaos16 said:

  Why not just use the appropriate "together with their families" wording to save yourself potential drama.

  This is why it is usually used.
  

  That's the idea. But it might not eliminate drama from nonhosting parents who expect to see themselves and deceased or current spouses listed.
  
  It's really amazing how something whose wording was standardized to avoid hurt feelings can generate hurt feelings through misunderstanding its actual purpose. People's egos are sooooooooooo fragile, aren't they?

  Report3 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017

  My PERSONAL opinion is that traditional wording should be used whenever possible. and I dislike "together with their parents" because it is verbally awkward.  (The parents are not being united in marriage, but the wording does seem to imply this.)  So many people insist on using it, I let it pass.
  
  I had to wince when I worded my own invitations.  My mother was a new divorce at my wedding, but she insisted on being listed as if she were simply my father's widow.  I let her have her way.  She denied her other marriages for years, and the people at the senior community where she lived her last few years had no idea that she was anything but a "poor, lonely widow".  Now, at my wedding, EVERYBODY already knew about Mama, so what was the point?
  
  Sometimes you do have to pick your battles, so I guess "Together with our parents" is OK, just not my preferred wording.
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• mrose88 member

  

  January 2017

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Your seeing this doesn't mean etiquette is changing on this. It isn't.
  
  Etiquette still upholds traditional wording, with no mentions of deceased or non-hosting parents or other relatives on invitations for the reasons we've given here and in other threads.
  
  "Being okay with" a departure from etiquette also doesn't mean this forum is "okay with" it.

  I mean this in the least snarky way possible, but, um, this forum is made of up of a variety of people with differing opinions and commitments to following etiquette to a T, no? The forum is not a sentient being that is capable of being "okay" with anything, but a place where people can voice their individual perspectives-- whether they're following etiquette or not. 
  
  We can advise people on the etiquette rules and warn them when we feel they're making a big mistake. We can also (I hope) be compassionate and flexible enough to work with someone when they have a specific thing they feel strongly about, for whatever reason. To be clear, I'm not against telling someone when what they're doing is against etiquette; I just think it's possible to do that and also be flexible enough to help them problem solve the actual thing before them besides "do it this way or you're wrong/rude". 
  
  And, for the record: if someone I invited to my wedding were to get mad at me because I included the name of my dead father on the invitation, I'd have a hard time not telling them to screw off. (Which, before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm aware would be against etiquette.) 
  

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  mrose88 said:

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  
  Actually, I don't care if parents are listed, including those deceased. It is a part of etiquette that I think is changing and I'm okay with it. I get that not all will feel the way I did/do.

  Your seeing this doesn't mean etiquette is changing on this. It isn't.
  
  Etiquette still upholds traditional wording, with no mentions of deceased or non-hosting parents or other relatives on invitations for the reasons we've given here and in other threads.
  
  "Being okay with" a departure from etiquette also doesn't mean this forum is "okay with" it.

  I mean this in the least snarky way possible, but, um, this forum is made of up of a variety of people with differing opinions and commitments to following etiquette to a T, no? The forum is not a sentient being that is capable of being "okay" with anything, but a place where people can voice their individual perspectives-- whether they're following etiquette or not. 
  
  We can advise people on the etiquette rules and warn them when we feel they're making a big mistake. We can also (I hope) be compassionate and flexible enough to work with someone when they have a specific thing they feel strongly about, for whatever reason. To be clear, I'm not against telling someone when what they're doing is against etiquette; I just think it's possible to do that and also be flexible enough to help them problem solve the actual thing before them besides "do it this way or you're wrong/rude". 
  
  And, for the record: if someone I invited to my wedding were to get mad at me because I included the name of my dead father on the invitation, I'd have a hard time not telling them to screw off. (Which, before anyone jumps down my throat, I'm aware would be against etiquette.) 
  

  Calm down.
  
  There are no wedding invitation police who are going to fine, jail or otherwise penalize you for using wording other than the standard wording. It's a "victimless crime," shall we say.
  
  But the standard wording happens to be correct per etiquette, so that's what we're going to advise couples to use.
  
  It's not about being "compassionate" here but acknowledging that the standard wording exists to make clear to the guests what they are being invited to, when and where it's happening, and who is inviting them.  And it can get confusing, to put it in the nicest way, when there are so many names of people who aren't doing that on the invitation because of hurt feelings, whether potential or actual.
  
  There are plenty of beautiful ways to honor non-hosting and deceased parents at weddings, but the wording of the invitation just isn't among them. My own suggestion would be to use a program for this rather than an invitation.
  
  
  

  Report1 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  So just to stir the pot ... because I've had a crappy day ... wouldn't it be against etiquette to list both MIB and FIb when really only the MIB is answering questions/hosting and the FIB is merely going and escorting the bride up the aisle but couldn't tell a guest one thing about the actual wedding plans/help with the event?

  I'm ever so glad that H and I hosted out own wedding and didn't need to think about including parents on the invite.

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  ernursej said:

  So just to stir the pot ... because I've had a crappy day ... wouldn't it be against etiquette to list both MIB and FIb when really only the MIB is answering questions/hosting and the FIB is merely going and escorting the bride up the aisle but couldn't tell a guest one thing about the actual wedding plans/help with the event?

  I'm ever so glad that H and I hosted out own wedding and didn't need to think about including parents on the invite.

  Under those circumstances you would use both the parents' names.
  
  But if none of a parental social unit is hosting, none of that social unit should be listed.

  Report0 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  So just to stir the pot ... because I've had a crappy day ... wouldn't it be against etiquette to list both MIB and FIb when really only the MIB is answering questions/hosting and the FIB is merely going and escorting the bride up the aisle but couldn't tell a guest one thing about the actual wedding plans/help with the event?

  I'm ever so glad that H and I hosted out own wedding and didn't need to think about including parents on the invite.

  Under those circumstances you would use both the parents' names.
  
  But if none of a parental social unit is hosting, none of that social unit should be listed.

  
  Isn't the listing of the parents to know who is hosting and therefore who to ask questions of? If FIB isn't really hosting (just MIB) that would be confusing the guests. Why does FIB get a free ride on the invite?

  Really though - appreciated your response even though I'm snarky and probably taking this way too far.  

  I think my take is that there is etiquette that is essential to guests comfort (chair for every bum, meal worthy food served at meal times and reception immediately following to say thank you) but getting it 'right' on an invite isn't essential to guests comfort. Most people throw away the invite and don't even think twice. They write down the location and time and don't even notice who is hosting. I didn't even know that being listed = hosting until I came on here.

  Report0 Reply
• Jen4948 member

  

  January 2017

  ernursej said:

  Jen4948 said:

  ernursej said:

  So just to stir the pot ... because I've had a crappy day ... wouldn't it be against etiquette to list both MIB and FIb when really only the MIB is answering questions/hosting and the FIB is merely going and escorting the bride up the aisle but couldn't tell a guest one thing about the actual wedding plans/help with the event?

  I'm ever so glad that H and I hosted out own wedding and didn't need to think about including parents on the invite.

  Under those circumstances you would use both the parents' names.
  
  But if none of a parental social unit is hosting, none of that social unit should be listed.

  
  Isn't the listing of the parents to know who is hosting and therefore who to ask questions of? If FIB isn't really hosting (just MIB) that would be confusing the guests. Why does FIB get a free ride on the invite?

  Really though - appreciated your response even though I'm snarky and probably taking this way too far.  

  I think my take is that there is etiquette that is essential to guests comfort (chair for every bum, meal worthy food served at meal times and reception immediately following to say thank you) but getting it 'right' on an invite isn't essential to guests comfort. Most people throw away the invite and don't even think twice. They write down the location and time and don't even notice who is hosting. I didn't even know that being listed = hosting until I came on here.

  As I said above, there is no wedding invitation police who will fine, jail, or otherwise penalize you for not using the standard wording.
  
  But that particular wording is correct, and since this entire forum is about wedding etiquette, that's what we provide when asked.  
  
  Also as noted above, you can use "together with their parents/families" in situations where listing hosting parents gets complicated for whatever reason.
  

  Report0 Reply
• CMGragain member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  This whole discussion is pointless.  There are rules.  You can follow them, or you can flout them, but don't expect anyone to support you when you go against etiquette wording advice from the experts.  (Miss Manners, Amy Vanderbilt, Crane's, Emily Post).
  Dead people inviting someone to a wedding?  My late father's mother would never have forgiven me if I had been so thoughtless and cruel to do that!  There are REASONS for the rules.
  
  
  
  

  

  Report0 Reply
• LondonLisa member

  

  January 2017 edited January 2017

  The issue is people trying to turn invitations into wedding announcements. They think it's the formal announcement of the wedding when in reality it is logistics of who, when etc. If they want a formally worded announcement, they should take one out in the newspaper. There you would say something like 'Susan Jane Smith, daughter of Mrs. Catherine Smith and the late John Smith' . 
  
  Putting a decesead person on an invitation is like phoning someone up after John died saying 'John and I would love to have you for dinner'. Of course you would placate a grieving friend, but you would think it creepy and worry how this person was coping. 
  
  If one one toned down the formally, would it be strange to say this out loud? Yes it's written in the 3rd person but if one changes that to first one can see how odd, morbid and ghoulish it is.  'My mum and stepdad would like to have you at my wedding to John on Saturday XXX.' Rather than: 'My mum and late father want to host you!' 
  
  The latter would leave me fumbling for words, picturing a Norman Bates situation and stumbling through a concerned: 'Susan, is everything ok?!'

  Report7 Reply
• ernursej member

  

  January 2017

  CMGragain said:

  This whole discussion is pointless. 
  
  

  I don't think any discussion is pointless when it is polite. If you thought it was pointless, why comment?

  I know when to stop, so I won't post more about this because I clearly feel differently from the majority and Jen is right about this being a forum for etiquette and I'm holding an opinion that is against the grain.

  
  

  Report2 Reply