Earn cash as you plan. Get a $20 gift card for every 200 points with The Knot Rewards
Wedding Etiquette Forum
jshelt23
member
Married Sister's Name First on Envelope?
My fiancee has two married sisters. When addressing the outer envelopes to them and their husbands, is it appropriate to forego the traditional "Mr. and Mrs. John Doe" and put her name first (e.g. Jane and John Doe), or do you still follow tradition in this case and put the husband's name first, even though he is not directly related to the groom? None of the etiquette websites I have checked deal with this specific question. Thank you in advance for your help!
Re: Married Sister's Name First on Envelope?
If she took her husband's last name and would be fine with any other piece of mail sent to her home as Mr. and Mrs. John Smith then it doesn't change here.
The addressing is based on the recipient and their preference and not their relationship to the hosts.
Etiquette means addressing people how they prefer to be addressed. My mom took my dad's last name when they got married, but she despised the Mr and Mrs John Doe addressing tradition. Some people prefer it. Just ask her what she prefers. That's the best way to ensure you treat her properly.
I've asked H to make sure everyone in his family knows I will murder them in their sleep if they ever call me Mrs. H's Firstname Lastname. (But to tell them politely). Mrs. H'sLastname is totally fine, but I have my own first name thankyouverymuch.
Yes, just ask them how they prefer to be addressed. I did that with a few cousins when I wasn't sure if they changed their name or not, and just said something like "I want to make sure I'm addressing your invite how you prefer." Neither of them cared, but said they appreciated being asked.
Exactly!
Also, OP, this is a great time to ask these questions since you'll probably be addressing Christmas cards, birthday invites, etc. for a long time with your family. Make note of how people answer the "what do you prefer" question and then you'll have confidence that you're doing it right going forward.
I try not to get too concerned over this, but DH noticed I got twitchy over one of the various holiday cards (Valentine's Day? St. Patrick's?) MIL sent relatively recently. It was addressed to "Mr. & Mrs. DH first last and DD first". DD was just tacked on the end of the line, with no last name or Miss title or anything. It wasn't exactly a formal address. I was like, "Oh, everyone in this family gets a first name except me?"
You have two options.
Mr. and Mrs. John Doe (traditional)
Ms. Jane Doe and Mr. John Doe (ladies first unless John is a doctor, judge, pastor, or congressional representative)
These are the two correct ways to address mail to a married couple. It is good if you know the couple's preference on how they like to be addressed. While many people prefer traditional addresses for social mail, others don't like it. This can make things difficult for the person who is addressing the invitations. Most older people tend to prefer the traditional style.
But on lots, I put men first.
I never put Mr. and Mrs. John Doe because even if it is traditional I hate the idea of women not having a name.
I addressed a widow Mrs Herfirst Hislastname. It came back to me as Mrs Hisfirstname Hislastname. She had been a widow for some 20 years. From then on I always addressed envelope to her as Mrs Hisfirst Hislast. Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to argue with someone over how they want to be addressed.
I actually don't give a fuck if my first name is not on an envelope addressed to the both of us. i.e Mr and Mrs Hisfirst his last. I just really don't care. And I even have a different last time. It would get pretty wordy on an envelope in my case to add my name.
I get why some women feel slighted. I'm just not one of them. Besides it only seems to happen with wedding invitations, which are few a far between now that I'm older. Or once a year on my yearly xmas card from from my own mom. Which is funny because as I said, we have different last names, but whatever mom.
I do care it's addressed only to me. As in don't ever address something as Mrs Hisfirst hislast. Thankfully I've never had anything addressed to me in that fashion.
A woman name is Jane Doe. Her social TITLE is Mrs. John Doe. Traditionally, people are addressed by their titles. Their name was kept for family and intimate friends. This is why you could address a letter to Mrs. John Doe, but inside the envelope, you would start your letter with "Dear Jane."
I addressed an invitation to a friend of mine who has been widowed for more than 20 years. She is a very strong feminist, so I took a guess and addressed the invitation to "Ms. Jane Doe". She was insulted, and returned the invitation with the name corrected to "Mrs. John Doe". You never know.
My sister-in-law is a prominent doctor. When receiving business mail, she is "Dr. Mary Jones", her business title. She prefers that her social mail is addressed to "Mrs. John Jones", her social title. Her friends and family call her "Mary", which is her name. Does that explain it?
I've heard this explanation before, but thank you for providing it again. I think the same gut reaction applies, though. People don't like the idea of a person's "name" - form of address, title, however you think of it - being defined by their relationship to their husband. The husband's first name isn't solely reserved for their close friends, so why is the woman's?
I think it just boils down to knowing those preferences.
I want the "Mrs. John Doe" social title to die.
The tradition of addressing women socially by Mrs. (husband first) (husband last) is to say: "Wife of John Doe" Literally that is what you're saying. Mrs. = "wife of" The tradition of a woman taking her husband's last name is from when women were property, bought and paid for by their grooms (via a dowry), then "given away" by their fathers (who previously controlled them) to their new patriarch. Hence being socially known as "Mrs. John Doe" (i.e. "Wife of John Doe"). Her name is not important socially. Her social identity is that 1) she's married and 2) she's married to John Doe, who is apparently socially relevant since his name IS recognized.
The tradition is, of course, just for women who are married to men. Adult men simply go by "Mr." because their social worth is carried with them, whether they're married or unmarried and no matter who they're married to.
If a married woman who took her husband's last name simply wants the same social treatment as a man (to have her name actually recognized rather than being "wife of..."), there have to be adjustments made to "not separate a man from his last name". #masculinitysofragile
If a married woman keeps her last name, Mrs (wife of) is off the table all together. She remains socially ambiguous all because she didn't take her husband's last name.
All this ranting and raving doesn't even address the fact that this tradition completely ignores same sex couples. It assumes that marriages are between women and men only. Special adjustments and considerations have to be made for same sex couples.
Some people don't care either way. Cool. And if someone prefers "Mrs. John Doe" for whatever reason, I'll address them that way. Because etiquette is all about making people comfortable and catering to their preferences as much as possible. But it won't keep me from wanting the outdated, sexist, patriarchal tradition of "Mrs. John Doe" to go the way of the dowry.
I always respect that people can choose how to be addressed. However, that does not give someone the right to determine how I wish to be addressed.
I remember the women's liberation movement of the 1960s. It was about giving women CHOICES, not about replacing old, rigid etiquette rules with new rigid ones.
I prefer that my personal mail be addressed to my title, Mrs. John Doe, and I am proud to use my title. This makes me traditional, but it does not mean that I am in any way not a modern liberated woman. My son brags to his friends that he was raised by a total feminist.
As for dowries, they still exist in wealthy families. Their legacy for most people is called a pre-nuptial contract, or "pre-nup".
Now that same sec couples have full social recognition (Yay!), etiquette is evolving to fully include them.
Ms. Jane Doe and Ms. Mary Doe is a married couple. If they are not married, their names appear on separate lines.
What's the problem with new etiquette rules if they are more inclusive of everyone? And how is it "rigid" to be MORE inclusive?
It seems odd to maintain traditional, patriarchal rules that are exclusive to traditional, heterosexual, gender-conforming relationships - where anyone outside those rules needs an exception/adjustment. If etiquette (not tradition) is about making people comfortable, then the default should be gender neutral and inclusive of all types of relationships/choices. Then, if someone wants to be "wife of John Doe", that would be the exception. Respected, of course, but the exception.
I agree with southernbelle. She's not saying you can't CHOOSE to go by Mrs. John Doe, just that shouldn't be the assumed norm. As we progress as society, why can't the assumed norm be more inclusive? While I personally do not want to be called that, I respect anyone who does and address them as such.
This might be an UO. As a general rule, as long as no malice is intended, I think people need to take it easy and not get mad as to how they are addressed on an envelope. Politely correct the person with the preferred form of address and move on. Now, if it is addressed incorrectly a second time or the person should have already known the preference, than I understand being upset.
I kept my maiden name legally and use my H's last name socially. Like many of you, my preference for social correspondence is Ms. (My first name) (H's last name). My least favorite would be Mrs. (H's full name). But, because I realize that is the proper way to address a married woman if her preference is not known, I'm not offended in the least. And, in all honesty, I don't care enough about it to even bother correcting someone.
Before TK, it would never have occurred to me to call someone ahead of time and ask for their name/title preference, but its posts like these that show its worth the effort. Because, while I may not care that much, many people do.
Before the knot I wouldn't have thought much about it. Because of the knot I did contact my cousin who didn't take her husband's name and wanted the bible to be changed to he/she everywhere.
Imagine my surprise when she told me she doesn't mind Mr and Mrs Hisfirst his last? She said it's not a big deal to her. She went on to say they have many envelopes addressed Mr and Mr Hisfirst Herlast or her husband is called Mr herlastname. Which her husband doesn't mind either. They just go with the flow and realize there is no malice.
I do not understand being upset by a simple written address. As long as it doesn't say "Occupant"....
If etiquette is about making guests comfortable why is it so hard to ask their correct/preferred titles or if they took their husbands name? They're addressing a lot of envelopes? That's their choice. We insist on making sure dates/SOs that bride/groom doesn't know is addressed properly by name; why would this be any different?
ETA: The FOB of a wedding we're going to Saturday texted my H this week to ask if I changed my name bc they were doing escort cards and wanted to make sure they had it right. This is a huge wedding and I thought it was really nice they cared enough to check.
I don't get upset about generic mail addressed incorrectly, but anyone who knows me personally should know enough to assume I don't want to be Mrs. John Doe, especially if we are close enough that we're invited to their wedding. It takes next to no time to confirm that with someone, and don't we always say etiquette is in place to ensure guests' comfort?
And I get especially annoyed when friends/family KNOW I kept my last name and they address me as Mrs. Hfirst Hlast anyway....because they think I should have changed it or they think that's the "polite way" to address people.
And therein lies the problem. The "polite way" is "wife of John Doe". IMO, the "polite way" should be "Ms. herfirst herlast", which would include all women (married/unmarried, changed name/kept name, married to a woman/married to a man, etc.) and ensure the use of her actual name. It's inclusive and gender equal.
It's ridiculous that a woman's traditional social title's sole purpose is to indicate marital status and who you're married to, but not your name. In other words, whether a woman is married and her husband are what's important. Whereas for a man, his social title doesn't indicate marital status at all or who he's married to. In other words, HE is what's important regardless of marital status.
Some people don't care. That's fine. But for me, this is just another glaring example of every day sexism that's baked into something so basic as one's identity.
My suspicion (and hope) is that, with time, this is changing and the etiquette will evolve to the "standard" being a woman's own first name is always used. I apologize to make this an "age" thing, but the gist I am getting from the posts and my own experience is women around my age (40s) and younger prefer to be addressed with their own first name or don't have a preference. I've never "met" anyone, online or otherwise, in those age brackets who prefers the Mrs. His First Name/Last Name. I'm sure there may be a few out there, but I suspect it is a small minority.
I keep seeing this - the sentiment of "someday things will change." Well, to hell with that. Things need to change now, not "someday." It's time.
Because patriarchy.
*steps onto soapbox*
In The Handmaid's Tale, Margaret Atwood took it a step farther. Women lose all their identity and those that become handmaid's are given new names. Our narrator is Offred. Her commander (the man she is state sanctioned to have sex with in order to provide the commander and his wife with a child) is named Fred. She is, literally, Of Fred. In the world of Gilead, her entire identity and worth as a woman is tied to her relationship to the man of the house. If she moves houses, she gets a new name.
She meets Ofglen, the handmaid next door. She is Of Glen and then shit happens and there's a new Ofglen. Offred asks what happens to Ofglen and the handmaid says "I am Ofglen." Because she is. The OG Ofglen is no longer tied to a man and therefore, no longer exists. And this new Ofglen could be anybody: her personality, her history, her fucking name are deemed inconsequential. All that matters is she is the human babymaker assigned to Glen.
So, sure. "Tradition" and "etiquette" and blah blah blah with the Mrs. John Doe title. But it is an example of a system that has routinely stripped women of their personal identity and valued them only in regards to their relationship with men. It happens in book titles all the time, too. The X's Wife. The Y's Mother. The Z's Daughter.
Unmarried women were known as "spinsters" or "old maids" while unmarried men got to be "playboys" and "bachelors." Then, once a woman got engaged -- once a man deemed her worthy enough to marry -- suddenly she had value and worth in the eyes of society. Why do you think there is still a stigma against women proposing? Why do you think there are men out there who get pissed off when they call a woman beautiful and she agrees with him? Because we aren't supposed to value ourselves enough to believe we are worthy of the attention of a man. That's why we are supposed to sit around and wait to be asked to get married and why we are supposed to politely demure compliments, because those are supposed to be something only men can bestow upon us, not something we can see in ourselves.
Even now, there are hetero women who are not married and may never marry and are 100% perfectly happy in their single life. And yet society views them as "broken." Women wear fake engagement or wedding rings to bars because saying "No, I'm not interested" isn't enough -- or worse, saying that is putting them at risk for violence. But tell the creepo hitting on you that you "belong" to someone else and suddenly they back off.
And that's not even getting into the world where lesbians and bi women are fetishized by men who still casually use the words "gay" and then go out and kill transwomen.
Yes, it's changing, but not fast enough. We still live in a world where women are only valued through the male gaze and our worth is found in our relationship to men.
So that's why some of us get offended and insulted at being called Mrs. John Doe and say fuck the patriarchy.
*steps off soapbox*
You just talked about a woman being insulted at being addressed as Ms. Jane Doe, and don't think a thing about it, but you can't fathom how someone would be insulted by Mrs. John Doe? Considering the former is progressive and inclusive, while the latter is full of sexist undertones, it seems that your surprise is a big biased toward your own preferences.
It's time to change the default to the progressive option, and reserve Mrs. John Doe for those traditionalists that prefer it.
Since neither you nor I have the power to do this, the argument is pointless. When the etiquette experts start saying that Ms. Jane Doe is the preferred form of address for married women, I will happily comply. This has not yet happened. There are many, many traditional women in this world that honor the old traditions. Their preference to how their mail is addressed has nothing to do with their modern thinking. It is their personal preference. Instead of arguing here, why don't you write to the Emily Post Institute, and Miss Manners? That would be taking action on the subject.
This bothers me so much. This is exactly the place to have these conversations. Obviously, there are many, many women whos preference is to be addressed by their own name. If you don't want to be part of the conversation, though your views are welcome, you don't have to be. To tell someone to stop talking about a subject and to take it elsewhere is incredibly rude.
Also, you DO have the power to be an agent of change. People come here asking for "how to address" advice every day. You give them traditional (I used this word 100% intentionally) advice. There's nothing stopping you from giving your traditional advice and an equally correct, modern alternative.
Thanks for the idea to write to Miss Manners and Emily Post. I think I'll do that.
Both of the bolded. Yes.
It's also super hetero-normative to assume a married woman has a HUSBAND. Society is progressing, and it only makes sense that etiquette keep up. Maybe we need to do away with Miss, Ms. and Mrs. altogether and just choose one. Personally, I've listed myself as Ms. for years because hell if you need my marital status, random-form-I'm-filling-out. WTF does it even matter?
There are definitely times when "traditional" etiquette can be pushed aside, and I think allowing for social progress is one of those times. If inclusivity as the default bothers you, that's a personal issue you'll have to work through.
I don't get angry, but I DO gently correct people with how I would like to be addressed. If they're open to conversation, I'll tell them why. I think having these casual conversations can make strides in changing what is the assumed norm. I also didn't have an engagement ring, and whenever anyone questioned me about it, I would tell them my reasoning (sexism, sketchy diamond mines, etc).
I don't force my opinions on people, but if they ask I do explain myself and just try to get them to see things from a different perspective.