Hyphenated Last Names and Addressing Envelopes

[MissMinnie]

I am amazed that this thread is 4 pages long!! I think we all need to keep in mind that the reason people have several different point of views on this is that it is a matter of respect. Women who have worked very hard in business and in getting advanced degrees want to be acknowledged as an individual who accomplished something. Women who didn't go to college or pursue other avenues also want to be respected as an individual as well. No one likes to feel like a shadow of someone else, even if that someone is a DH. I think the reason for the name thing Mrs John Smith goes way back to the old days of women being looked at as a husband's property and having to allow him to make all the household decisions. Thank goodness we have evolved beyond that. Our way of addressing people has to evolve too. Women just want respect for what they do, not just what the husband's accomplishments are.

 

[easleygrls]

I vote for Mr and Mrs John Smith and Mary Jones-Smith for formal mailings. For informal, just John Smith & Mary Jones-Smith.

I think some of this has been getting bogged down in considerations of husband/wife hierarchy. When you remove that dynamic is seems simpler. So, to a friend couple of mine, Ms Jane Doe and Ms Mary Smith for formal (alphabetized...how easy is that?) or, for informal The Doe Smith family.

I guess it boils down to how formal is the mailing? For wedding invitations etc there are buttloads of ettiquette books out there. But for every day hellos, keep it simple. I agree with a PP, why not just ask the couple how they prefer to be addressed?

 

[Beth76]

While it may be technically correct to address a formal invitation to John and John's wife, it is more proper these days to refer to a women by her name, rather than as the wife of her husband. So, if Mrs. John Smith is being used as a name, fine. But otherwise, use her name.

I'm not getting the problem here. If it's technically correct, then it's technically correct. Someone writing out hundreds of wedding invitations can not be expected to know who's going to get their panties in a bunch over formal wording on an invitation. Seriously, if a woman has problems with being referred to her husband's wife on an invitation, I think there are other issues there. I doubt there's anyone out there calling women "Mrs John Smith" to thier face. Maybe this will change, but it hasn't yet. So either change it the world over, or suck it up.

 

[salmoneous]

I'm not getting the problem here. If it's technically correct, then it's technically correct.

It's technically correct in the same way it would be correct to address it to "John Smith and that blonde chick he shares a bed with." Yes, his Mary Jones is a blond chick he shares a bed with. Yes, Mary Jones is his wife. But from a formal style and etiquette standpoint, her invitation should be addressed to her by name, not by her relationship to John Smith.

Someone writing out hundreds of wedding invitations can not be expected to know who's going to get their panties in a bunch over formal wording on an invitation.

No, but they are expected to know the person's name. That is all that is being asked here.

Seriously, if a woman has problems with being referred to her husband's wife on an invitation, I think there are other issues there.

My wife, like many women, prefers to be addressed by her name. She doesn't feel that is unreasonable. I don't either.

Do you honestly think it unreasonable for somebody sending wedding invitation to know the names of the people being invited?

 

[Beth76]

It's technically correct in the same way it would be correct to address it to "John Smith and that blonde chick he shares a bed with."

Ah, but that's not proper. The way that I'm talking about is proper.

My wife, like many women, prefers to be addressed by her name. She doesn't feel that is unreasonable. I don't either.

Like I said (I think 2 times already) I don't like the formality either, but that's just the way it is. I do find it unreasonable to expect people to know exactly which way everyone "expects" to have thier invitations addressed to them when there is a proper way to do it. That's why we have etiquette, so there is one set of "rules" and everyone isn't confused. Why do some people insist on being difficult about this? Just be glad you're getting the invitation.

 

[salmoneous]

Ah, but that's not proper.... I don't like the formality either, but that's just the way it is.

With all due respect, it is no longer proper to address a women who does not use her husband's last name as Mrs. John Smith. Check any recent etiquette guide if you don't believe me.

I do find it unreasonable to expect people to know exactly which way everyone "expects" to have their invitations addressed to them when there is a proper way to do it. That's why we have etiquette, so there is one set of "rules" and everyone isn't confused. Why do some people insist on being difficult about this? Just be glad you're getting the invitation.

We do have etiquette. We do have one set of rules. There should be no confusion. Proper etiquette is to refer to a woman by her name. Wanting to use Mrs. John Smith for a woman who doesn't use Smith as a last name is the path of "being difficult".

 

[lulugirl]

We do have etiquette. We do have one set of rules. There should be no confusion. Proper etiquette is to refer to a woman by her name. Wanting to use Mrs. John Smith for a woman who doesn't use Smith as a last name is the path of "being difficult".

Well stated