shape
carat
color
clarity

Etiquette question about invitation wording!!?

Carats

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Feb 2, 2007
Messages
169
How do people typically write the names of the invitees on the envelopes? Especially when husband and wife have different last names?
So for example, lets say I have a Dr.Sally Smith and a Mr.Joe Mac.

1. Mr. and Dr. Joe Mac?

2. Mr. Mac and Dr. Smith?

3. Mr. Joe Mac and Dr.Sally Smith?

Which one?? What if the names are the same? Is option 1 sexist?
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/1/2010 7:47:03 PM
Author:Carats
How do people typically write the names of the invitees on the envelopes? Especially when husband and wife have different last names?

So for example, lets say I have a Dr.Sally Smith and a Mr.Joe Mac.


1. Mr. and Dr. Joe Mac?


2. Mr. Mac and Dr. Smith?


3. Mr. Joe Mac and Dr.Sally Smith?


Which one?? What if the names are the same? Is option 1 sexist?

As long as they are married, Dr. Sally Smith and Mr. Joe Mac.

For two unmarried people who live together,
Dr. Sally Smith
Mr. Joe Mac

The woman's name should always come first if you aren't doing the "Mr. and Mrs. Hisfirst Hislast" thing. Married couples are ALWAYS joined by "and" (regardless of whether they share a last name) and the names should be on the same line if it fits, or indent the second name if you have to use two lines. Unmarried couples who live together get two lines, no "and."

When a married couple shares a last name, the most formal way is "Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith." If you're not stuck on being really formal (and/or if you hate that wording as much as I do), the best way would be either:
Mrs. Sally Smith and Mr. Joe Smith (might offend some older or more traditional people because that wording for a woman used to imply she was divorced -- not so much anymore, though)
or
Sally and Joe Smith (I did it this way, didn't use titles for anyone -- but this is considered very informal)

Please do not do "Mr. and Mrs. Joe and Sally Smith." If you use a title, it should immediately precede the person's actual name (excepting, of course, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Smith, where the woman doesn't get a name at all).

Hope that helps!
 

mayachel

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
1,749
I second Octavia''s advice
36.gif
 

rockscissorpaper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
20
Hello!
I don''t usually post on this forum, but have come across this issue too, and just wanted to add that "Dr." always comes before "Mr." regardless of gender. So instead of "Mr. and Mrs.," if the woman is a Dr., it would be "Dr. and Mr." Your particular situation is tricky with the different last names, but I wanted to add that piece of information. Hope that helps.
 

caribqueen

Brilliant_Rock
Joined
Dec 22, 2008
Messages
507
In addition, in case you come across this, if a wife hyphenates her name, that too counts as a different last name than her husband. So that example would be Mrs. Jane Thomas-Smith and Mr. John Smith.

Also, not to complicate things more, but because I had some questions when it came time to do escort cards, if you choose to carry on the same formality with the escort cards (the ones that tell people what table where they will be sitting), it would be addressed the same as what you use on the outer envelope of the invitation. But for the escort card, I''ve read that for an unmarried couple, you would put the name of the person who either you or the groom are related to/know first, rather than the woman''s name first as it''s supposed to be on the outer envelope of the invitation. So if your cousin is a guy and he brings his girlfriend, for the escort cards, his name would go first.

Sorry - probably more info than you want... but I figured they''re closely related and you''ll probably be dealing with that soon.
 

Lozza

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
123
This is just a technicality, but if a couple is living together as a married couple (I think it''s called common law marriage in the US?), but aren''t actually married, you should still use the married form.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/2/2010 6:04:17 AM
Author: Lozza
This is just a technicality, but if a couple is living together as a married couple (I think it's called common law marriage in the US?), but aren't actually married, you should still use the married form.

True, however, common-law marriage has been abolished in all but a handful of US states, and is relatively rare even where allowed. In 99% of cases, it wouldn't be applicable. If in doubt, I'd use the format for unmarried partners (especially since common-law partners are technically married where CLM exists, so aren't just living together).
 

Clairitek

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
4,881
As always, Octavia, great advice!

Carats- I applaud you for paying attention to this detail. I recently received a wedding invitation address to Mr and Mrs DHFirst DHLast. Ummmm I am Mrs Clairitek Maiden-DHLast! NOT Mrs. DHFirst DHLast. Its one thing if the person sending the invite is totally unaware of the situation, but another for someone who KNOWS what the woman''s name is and doesn''t address her that way. I''m sure Dr Sally Smith will appreciate you taking the time to figure out the proper way to address her invitation! I know I do, when it happens.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/2/2010 4:36:28 PM
Author: Clairitek
As always, Octavia, great advice!


Carats- I applaud you for paying attention to this detail. I recently received a wedding invitation address to Mr and Mrs DHFirst DHLast. Ummmm I am Mrs Clairitek Maiden-DHLast! NOT Mrs. DHFirst DHLast. Its one thing if the person sending the invite is totally unaware of the situation, but another for someone who KNOWS what the woman's name is and doesn't address her that way. I'm sure Dr Sally Smith will appreciate you taking the time to figure out the proper way to address her invitation! I know I do, when it happens.

Aww, thanks C-tek! I'm sensitive to this right now because the last two invitations we received were to Mr. and Mrs. Octavian Hislast (wrong) and to
Ms. Octavia Mylast
Mr. Octavian Hislast
(closer but still wrong -- we're married! We get an "and"!!). We have yet to receive anything properly addressed, so it's especially nice to help out people who care about it!
 

Clairitek

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Messages
4,881
Date: 6/2/2010 6:45:23 PM
Author: Octavia
Date: 6/2/2010 4:36:28 PM

Author: Clairitek

As always, Octavia, great advice!

Carats- I applaud you for paying attention to this detail. I recently received a wedding invitation address to Mr and Mrs DHFirst DHLast. Ummmm I am Mrs Clairitek Maiden-DHLast! NOT Mrs. DHFirst DHLast. Its one thing if the person sending the invite is totally unaware of the situation, but another for someone who KNOWS what the woman''s name is and doesn''t address her that way. I''m sure Dr Sally Smith will appreciate you taking the time to figure out the proper way to address her invitation! I know I do, when it happens.

Aww, thanks C-tek! I''m sensitive to this right now because the last two invitations we received were to Mr. and Mrs. Octavian Hislast (wrong) and to

Ms. Octavia Mylast

Mr. Octavian Hislast

(closer but still wrong -- we''re married! We get an ''and''!!). We have yet to receive anything properly addressed, so it''s especially nice to help out people who care about it!

I didn''t even think about the "and" thing! You''re right though. Makes sense for a married couple who don''t share a last name to have the "and." I normally try not to be oversensitive about these things, and when I try to gently correct a friend about my name, I normally get brushed off or told that I am wrong.
 

MakingTheGrade

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
12,918
The most recent formal event I went to was addressed to "Ms. MTG and Mr. DH" So the "and" was there...and I guess technically speaking, "Ms" is a legit formal address for women even if they are married.
 

Lozza

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
123
Date: 6/2/2010 3:45:41 PM
Author: Octavia
Date: 6/2/2010 6:04:17 AM

Author: Lozza

This is just a technicality, but if a couple is living together as a married couple (I think it''s called common law marriage in the US?), but aren''t actually married, you should still use the married form.


True, however, common-law marriage has been abolished in all but a handful of US states, and is relatively rare even where allowed. In 99% of cases, it wouldn''t be applicable. If in doubt, I''d use the format for unmarried partners (especially since common-law partners are technically married where CLM exists, so aren''t just living together).

I must have misunderstood the term then sorry. In Australia, if a couple lives together ''as a husband and wife would'' you are considered to be de facto married in the eyes of the law (and all the benefits and responsibilities of marriage apply to you). I assumed it was the same in the US.

If someone sent my FI and I an invitation in the format of 2 people who are not partners, I would be a little put out. I believe that if a couple lives as a married couple you should treat them as such.

However, obviously it seems that culturally the difference between living together and married is much greater in the US than Australia, so I guess it comes down to using your best judgement with the people you know. You''re more likely to know how they see themselves/how they will react than people on a forum.
 

cara

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
2,202
Lozza, the problem is that cohabitating does not equal married, and many people don't want to be married even if they consider themselves life partners with someone. Separate lines on the envelope does not indicate that two people are not in a relationship - it just means they aren't married. Two adults in the same household that are NOT in a relationship (ie. roommates) should actually get entirely separate invites, because they are not a social unit and may or may not coordinate with one another in replying to invitations and attending events. But receiving the same invite implies two people are a social unit, whether or not their names are listed on the same line or not.

Not that anyone should get their knickers in a twist over whether or not they are listed on one line or two on an envelope, but I'd hold off on assuming cohabitating couples are common law spouses unless they have specifically taken steps to indicate they see themselves as married or would like to be married if not for some legal obstacle in their way (ie, same-sex marriage is not an option in most of the states, but if a couple wears rings, etc., I'd assume they see themselves as married and treat them as such regardless of legal status.) But for *most* couples, if they wanted to be married, they'd be married.
 

Lozza

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
123
As I said, I guess there are cultural differences between various places in the world about the difference between married and cohabiting. Only you know your guests, and how they would prefer to be referred to.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
In several countries (Canada and Australia come to mind) it is much easier to enter into a common-law marriage than it is in the US. In my state, CLM was allowed until 2005, but in order for the CLM to be valid, the couple basically had to have a real wedding ceremony with vows and declarations of intent (the only thing missing was the marriage license). Part of the requirement for CLM in the US is actually believing yourselves to be married, not just intending to get married at some point, and most cohabiting couples don't qualify for that, i.e. they know that they aren't actually married even if they consider themselves a "family unit." I think that in some other countries, a relationship between live-in partners becomes a CLM after a certain period of time? Anyway, it's definitely a cultural difference and depending on where Carats lives, she can use whatever version is appropriate!
 

Lozza

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
123
Date: 6/6/2010 2:46:56 PM
Author: Octavia
In several countries (Canada and Australia come to mind) it is much easier to enter into a common-law marriage than it is in the US. In my state, CLM was allowed until 2005, but in order for the CLM to be valid, the couple basically had to have a real wedding ceremony with vows and declarations of intent (the only thing missing was the marriage license). Part of the requirement for CLM in the US is actually believing yourselves to be married, not just intending to get married at some point, and most cohabiting couples don''t qualify for that, i.e. they know that they aren''t actually married even if they consider themselves a ''family unit.'' I think that in some other countries, a relationship between live-in partners becomes a CLM after a certain period of time? Anyway, it''s definitely a cultural difference and depending on where Carats lives, she can use whatever version is appropriate!
Yes, that is correct. In Australia (NSW at least), you become a de facto couple automatically, you don''t need to register or anything. You are recognised as a de facto couple if you live together as a couple, and are not married or related to one another by family.

A de facto husband/wife is entitled to a property settlement upon ''divorce'', will automatically inherit the other''s estate if there is no will when someone dies, can be included on each others health insurance, is considered a spouse for tax purposes etc... Legally, it''s the same as being married (they may be a few small differences, but I''m not aware of any).

In my family/circle of friends, it''s becoming much more acceptable or a couple to meet, fall in love, buy property, have children, and declare themselves to be partners for life without ever getting married. Obviously in some other circles in Australia (particularly religious or ethnic ones), this is not the case and marriage is still held in high regard.

Given the above, if I was to send wedding invitations to de facto couples as if they were different to a married couple, it would be considered extremely rude. However, I can see from the posts above that in other cultures, being married is considered to be of higher status/greater commitment than cohabiting. In which case, it would be perfectly appropriate to treat the 2 seperately.

That''s what I love about this site, you learn so much about different communities and cultures that are different from your own!
 

rockscissorpaper

Rough_Rock
Joined
Aug 23, 2009
Messages
20
Hi again,

So in response to the original question (I was looking up something similar) I think it would be:

Dr. Sally Smith and Mr. Joe Mac

different last names, with "and" indicating marriage, but the "Dr." preceding "Mr."
 

bleeblue

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
256
Humm... I have this problem with the actual invite becase we are hostin with both sets of parents. My parents are married but mother kept her maiden name.

Could someone let me know which option below is correct and looks the best (I would like the invite to remain quite formal - oh, and the names are made up of course)
33.gif
or correct me if they are all wrong:

Option 1

Heather Marie Smith
and
Michael Francis Jacobson
together with their parents
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Sarah Jones
&
Mr. and Mrs. Mark Franklin Jacobson
request the pleasure of your company
at their wedding...

Option 2

Heather Marie Smith
and
Michael Francis Jacobson
together with their parents
Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Sarah Jones
&
Mr. Mark Jacobson and Mrs. Anne Jacobson
request the pleasure of your company
at their wedding...

Option 3

Together with their parents
Heather Marie Smith
and
Michael Francis Jacobson
request the pleasure of your company
at their wedding...

TIA

 

cara

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
2,202
I would do option 3. If you want the parents names listed (or the parents want their names listed and you are willing) I would do:

Mrs. Sarah Jones and Mr. John Smith
Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson
request the pleasure of your company
at the marriage of their children
Heather Marie
and
Michael Francis

This puts the 4 parents in the hosting position, and the kids just as the bridal couple rather than hosts, but I personally wouldn't care about that too much.


Lozza - it isn't even so much about marriage being 'higher status' that would make me reluctant to assume a couple living together is as good as married - it is the 'assuming' part. In the States at least, it is a bad assumption to assume that all cohabitating couples consider themselves to be married. Many many cohabitating couples either consider themselves less committed that a married couple OR they actively don't want to be married. So you have to get your assumptions right. I'm not trying to demote or insult people by following the etiquette guidelines and I am happy to make accommodations for people that have clearly indicated they consider themselves married even though they haven't actually gotten married for whatever reason (never bothered, legal or practical obstacle, etc.) But *generally*, people that want to be married get married! Of those that are not married, some couples may even be committed life partners, but have philosophical objections to marriage and don't want to be part of it! Or far more commonly, many couples move in together and consider themselves to have a lesser level of commitment than a married couple. It would be problematic for other people to assume they are 'common law spouses' when they still consider themselves less attached than that. Maybe it is partly a product of the legal differences, in that most couples can move in together without getting legally entangled a la common law spouses, so couples do move in together regularly with a lesser level of commitment.
 

bleeblue

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Sep 16, 2009
Messages
256
thanks cara!

I think the thrid one looks the neatest but I was worried that that format makes the wording informal which I don''t want.
 

Lozza

Shiny_Rock
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
123
Date: 6/7/2010 8:53:54 PM
Author: cara
I would do option 3. If you want the parents names listed (or the parents want their names listed and you are willing) I would do:

Mrs. Sarah Jones and Mr. John Smith
Mr. and Mrs. Jacobson
request the pleasure of your company
at the marriage of their children
Heather Marie
and
Michael Francis

This puts the 4 parents in the hosting position, and the kids just as the bridal couple rather than hosts, but I personally wouldn''t care about that too much.


Lozza - it isn''t even so much about marriage being ''higher status'' that would make me reluctant to assume a couple living together is as good as married - it is the ''assuming'' part. In the States at least, it is a bad assumption to assume that all cohabitating couples consider themselves to be married. Many many cohabitating couples either consider themselves less committed that a married couple OR they actively don''t want to be married. So you have to get your assumptions right. I''m not trying to demote or insult people by following the etiquette guidelines and I am happy to make accommodations for people that have clearly indicated they consider themselves married even though they haven''t actually gotten married for whatever reason (never bothered, legal or practical obstacle, etc.) But *generally*, people that want to be married get married! Of those that are not married, some couples may even be committed life partners, but have philosophical objections to marriage and don''t want to be part of it! Or far more commonly, many couples move in together and consider themselves to have a lesser level of commitment than a married couple. It would be problematic for other people to assume they are ''common law spouses'' when they still consider themselves less attached than that. Maybe it is partly a product of the legal differences, in that most couples can move in together without getting legally entangled a la common law spouses, so couples do move in together regularly with a lesser level of commitment.
Completely agree with you. I should have made it clearer, but I did say in my original post "but if a couple is living together as a married couple". I agree if they are living together but don''t see themselves as such, you shouldn''t treat them as such!

I guess I assume that you will know your guests well enough to know how they view their relationship, but I guess that may not always be the case, particularly for larger guest lists.
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,375
Date: 6/7/2010 8:08:26 PM
Author: bleeblue
Humm... I have this problem with the actual invite becase we are hostin with both sets of parents. My parents are married but mother kept her maiden name.


Could someone let me know which option below is correct and looks the best (I would like the invite to remain quite formal - oh, and the names are made up of course)
33.gif
or correct me if they are all wrong:


Option 1


Heather Marie Smith

and

Michael Francis Jacobson

together with their parents

Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Sarah Jones

&

Mr. and Mrs. Mark Franklin Jacobson

request the pleasure of your company

at their wedding...


Option 2


Heather Marie Smith

and

Michael Francis Jacobson

together with their parents

Mr. John Smith and Mrs. Sarah Jones

&

Mr. Mark Jacobson and Mrs. Anne Jacobson

request the pleasure of your company

at their wedding...


Option 3


Together with their parents

Heather Marie Smith

and

Michael Francis Jacobson

request the pleasure of your company

at their wedding...



TIA

For your mom, who kept her maiden name, it would Miss Sarah Jones, not Mrs. Mrs is used only when she takes her husband's last name. If your mom prefers Ms, that would be ok to use.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/10/2010 2:20:46 PM
Author: JulieN
For your mom, who kept her maiden name, it would Miss Sarah Jones, not Mrs. Mrs is used only when she takes her husband's last name. If your mom prefers Ms, that would be ok to use.

I disagree. "Miss" is used for unmarried women, and generally those under 18. Unless bleeblue's mom really, really wants to be called "Miss" for some reason, I think it would be entirely inappropriate. You're right, though, that "Mrs" is traditionally only used with the husband's last name. The Emily Post etiquette guide (found here) says that "Ms" is proper, and I tend to agree. One of the lesser reasons I didn't take my husband's name is because I do not use titles that indicate my marital status, just as men don't. I was not a "Miss" after I reached the age of majority, and I am not a "Mrs" now, despite the fact that I am married.

However, I also advocate deferring to the person in question's preference. As in, bleeblue, why don't you ask your mother how she prefers to be listed? Even if it's not "technically" correct, I'd go with what she wants.

Edit to what I said in response to the original question, based on re-reading the EP forms of address chart -- she says that the woman's name does not have to come first (where I used to work, we did use that rule, though). Either way, if one person "outranks" the other, that person's name should come first, i.e. Dr. would always come before Mr/Ms.
 

JulieN

Super_Ideal_Rock
Premium
Joined
Jul 25, 2005
Messages
13,375
Date: 6/10/2010 6:58:17 PM
Author: Octavia
Date: 6/10/2010 2:20:46 PM

Author: JulieN

For your mom, who kept her maiden name, it would Miss Sarah Jones, not Mrs. Mrs is used only when she takes her husband's last name. If your mom prefers Ms, that would be ok to use.


I disagree. 'Miss' is used for unmarried women, and generally those under 18. Unless bleeblue's mom really, really wants to be called 'Miss' for some reason, I think it would be entirely inappropriate. You're right, though, that 'Mrs' is traditionally only used with the husband's last name. The Emily Post etiquette guide (found here) says that 'Ms' is proper, and I tend to agree. One of the lesser reasons I didn't take my husband's name is because I do not use titles that indicate my marital status, just as men don't. I was not a 'Miss' after I reached the age of majority, and I am not a 'Mrs' now, despite the fact that I am married.


However, I also advocate deferring to the person in question's preference. As in, bleeblue, why don't you ask your mother how she prefers to be listed? Even if it's not 'technically' correct, I'd go with what she wants.


Edit to what I said in response to the original question, based on re-reading the EP forms of address chart -- she says that the woman's name does not have to come first (where I used to work, we did use that rule, though). Either way, if one person 'outranks' the other, that person's name should come first, i.e. Dr. would always come before Mr/Ms.

The usage depends more on where you are from and the rules you grew up learning. You point to Emily Post; I like The Economist's style guide.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/11/2010 2:34:40 AM
Author: JulieN
Date: 6/10/2010 6:58:17 PM

Author: Octavia

Date: 6/10/2010 2:20:46 PM


Author: JulieN


For your mom, who kept her maiden name, it would Miss Sarah Jones, not Mrs. Mrs is used only when she takes her husband''s last name. If your mom prefers Ms, that would be ok to use.



I disagree. ''Miss'' is used for unmarried women, and generally those under 18. Unless bleeblue''s mom really, really wants to be called ''Miss'' for some reason, I think it would be entirely inappropriate. You''re right, though, that ''Mrs'' is traditionally only used with the husband''s last name. The Emily Post etiquette guide (found here) says that ''Ms'' is proper, and I tend to agree. One of the lesser reasons I didn''t take my husband''s name is because I do not use titles that indicate my marital status, just as men don''t. I was not a ''Miss'' after I reached the age of majority, and I am not a ''Mrs'' now, despite the fact that I am married.



However, I also advocate deferring to the person in question''s preference. As in, bleeblue, why don''t you ask your mother how she prefers to be listed? Even if it''s not ''technically'' correct, I''d go with what she wants.



Edit to what I said in response to the original question, based on re-reading the EP forms of address chart -- she says that the woman''s name does not have to come first (where I used to work, we did use that rule, though). Either way, if one person ''outranks'' the other, that person''s name should come first, i.e. Dr. would always come before Mr/Ms.


The usage depends more on where you are from and the rules you grew up learning. You point to Emily Post; I like The Economist''s style guide.

Thank you for pointing out that style guide, I''d never seen it before. Still, I think in a social situation, I''d go with a social guide (doesn''t have to be EP, though it''s my personal favorite because it seems to have the best balance between traditional rules and modern exceptions) rather than a guide designed for journalism. I read through it and it does make sense in many ways, though I can''t understand why Miss or Mrs are deemed "prettier" than then "ugly" Ms...I actually think Mrs is the ugliest of all forms. Just a cultural difference, I guess. From a practical standpoint, though, if I received an invitation listing "Mr John Smith and Miss Sarah Jones," my thoughts would be 1) why on earth is a woman old enough to be the mother of the bride still going by Miss (it is primarily used for young girls here, the same way Master would be used for young boys) and 2) that the parents were not married (outside of the Economist guide, I have NEVER seen a married woman addressed as Miss regardless of her name choice). So your comment really threw me until you explained where it came from!
 

cara

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
2,202
Is there some reason I am missing as to why the Economist would be considered an appropriate style guide resource?

In particular, Miss typically means unmarried woman. That is even the primary definition in the OED (though there are exceptions and other usages: Miss for female teacher regardless of marital status; regional usages such as Miss used indiscriminately for women in the South (of the US) typically with first names ie. Miss Daisy; Miss for waitresses, etc.) Seems like unmarried women in the UK tend to retain Miss past the age of 18 more than in the US, so maybe that plays some role in Miss being more accepted there. But there is nothing ugly about Ms, it is completely proper and appropriate for a married woman that has retained the surname given to her at birth. It is used in both the US and UK. If you are addressing a married woman that uses her birth surname I would use Ms unless you know her preference to be different.
 

Haven

Super_Ideal_Rock
Joined
Feb 15, 2007
Messages
13,166
The Economist's style guide is written for journalists' use.
Emily Post's style guides are written for use in social situations.

As always, it's important to keep audience in mind when choosing which sources to trust for your particular needs.
 

Delster

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,231
I thought I heard somewhere that for a woman you don''t put ''Dr'' or ''Professor'' or any other professional title on an invitation. The reason I read at the time was that while a man is defined by his professional status, a woman is defined by her marital status - so for the purposes of social correspondence, is irrelevant.

It stuck in my craw when I read it so I remembered it!

I would defer to the individual woman''s personal preference. For myself, that''s ''Ms'' as I don''t like being defined by my marital status.
 

Octavia

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
2,660
Date: 6/12/2010 2:29:37 PM
Author: Delster
I thought I heard somewhere that for a woman you don't put 'Dr' or 'Professor' or any other professional title on an invitation. The reason I read at the time was that while a man is defined by his professional status, a woman is defined by her marital status - so for the purposes of social correspondence, is irrelevant.


It stuck in my craw when I read it so I remembered it!


I would defer to the individual woman's personal preference. For myself, that's 'Ms' as I don't like being defined by my marital status.

This probably was the old rule, but I dare you to address a female judge as "Mrs" instead of "The Honorable" (or whatever the equivalent title is in Ireland) and see what happens.
2.gif
23.gif
 

Delster

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
2,231
Date: 6/12/2010 3:52:03 PM
Author: Octavia
Date: 6/12/2010 2:29:37 PM

Author: Delster

I thought I heard somewhere that for a woman you don't put 'Dr' or 'Professor' or any other professional title on an invitation. The reason I read at the time was that while a man is defined by his professional status, a woman is defined by her marital status - so for the purposes of social correspondence, is irrelevant.



It stuck in my craw when I read it so I remembered it!



I would defer to the individual woman's personal preference. For myself, that's 'Ms' as I don't like being defined by my marital status.


This probably was the old rule, but I dare you to address a female judge as 'Mrs' instead of 'The Honorable' (or whatever the equivalent title is in Ireland) and see what happens.
2.gif
23.gif

LOL
9.gif


Actually none of these rules are followed over here... we're very lax about etiquette stuff like this!

ETA - if anyone is curious, here's how it would go - on paper a lady judge would be 'Ms Justice Octavia'/'Miss Justice Octavia'/'Mrs Justice Octavia' (defer to her preference); in conversation she'd be 'Judge Octavia'; and in court she'd be 'Judge'. No 'Dr' or 'Prof' or anything like that, even if she's earned it academically, as the legal profession here don't use them
1.gif
 
Be a part of the community Get 3 HCA Results
Top