I have a question about wedding invites and names

[johnnie]

A friend of mine has a son that is going to be married soon. The bride to be had the invitation made and left off my friend and her ex-husband's name. You know... the "are proud to announce...blah blah blah"? She is upset about it and I think it is wrong also. But maybe I just don't understand what it is supposed to be.

I just thought I would ask you guys what you thought.

[ScreamingMeemie]

1. Are the other parents' names on there? If yes it's a slight.

Invites usually go like this:

Mr and Mrs Soon to be Broke are pleased to announce the marriage of their daughter

Bethany Bitchy Bride

To

Mr Ken U Calmdown


Son of Mr and Mrs We have to pay for What

That's traditional


More modern would be:

Together with our parents,

and then the names.


I'd be a little out of joint but I'd get over it for the sake of the kids. Weird things happen to people when their children get married.

[johnnie]

8. LOL

"Mr and Mrs Soon to be Broke are pleased to announce the marriage of their daughter

Bethany Bitchy Bride

To

Mr Ken U Calmdown"

That's classic...LOL

[supernova]

2. You mean? and It depends.

she left off the groom's parent's names or both sets of parents entirely?

If they left off the grooms parents' names but kept her parents, yes that's not right.

If however she left off both parents in favor of the more modern "Bride and Groom are please to invite you to celebrate...."

Well, that's the bride's call, espcially if the couple are paying for the wedding themselves.

[johnnie]

4. Left off the grooms parent's names

And put her parents on it. They said it's because the are paying for it.

[supernova]

7. Then, yes that's wrong

For family diplomacy's sake, either both parents are on it or both are off. This does not bode well for the future in-law relationship. Sorry. Could just be an oversight if the bride is just a naive dolt, but not likely.

[LeftyMom]

3. Are they helping to pay for it?

Thier names really don't need to be on the invitation unless they're throwing the party. :shrug:

[johnnie]

5. Well, that's what they are saying

I think that is tacky, but as I said, I could be wrong.

[LeftyMom]

13. They ought to have discussed it before hand

Personally I think the ideal solution is for anybody who thinks they're grown and responsible enough to get married to keep it small and pay for it themselves, then do things however they like, but I'm not really one to respect traditions that don't seem to be working.

Leaving one set of parents off the invitations is tacky, but so is expecting equal billing with the people footing the bill. :shrug:

[trof]

14. Bingo! Worse than wrong: TACKY!

And ex-TREEM-leh low clahss and ill bred.
;-)

[azmouse]

6. I was married almost 19 yrs ago and

didn't have any parents names on the invite because my hubby and I paid for our own wedding.
We used the generic 'together with our parents'; no names mentioned.
But I let my parents know the wording before the invites were printed to be sure they were ok with it.

[Lavender Brown]

9. I thought it was typical to name the groom's parents

Whether or not they are paying for it. :shrug:

[johnnie]

10. So did I n/t

[eyesroll]

11. A lot of times, the names reflect who's paying:

"Mr. and Mrs. Bridesparents (or Mr. and Mrs. Bridedad and Stepmom and Ms. Brideamom, or whatever) are proud to announce..." indicates that the Bridesparents are hosting. (Ditto for Groomsparents, if it's worded that way.) Sometimes, if it's one set of parents hosting, the others can be mentioned as: "Bridesparents are proud to announce the marriage of their daughter, Patricia Bride, to John Groom, Son of Mr. and Mrs. Groom."

"John Smith and Jane Doe request the presence of your company at their wedding..." indicates that the bride and groom are hosting. Sometimes the parents are listed in that son-of, daughter-of fashion, sometimes not. Generally, if one set of parents is listed in this way, the other should be, too.


I think if I ever got married again, it would be informal, and parents wouldn't get mentioned anyway. "Stacie and SO are getting married. Date, time, place. RSVP."

[CaliforniaPeggy]

12. The standard and accepted practice is to include

the names of both sets of parents......

No matter which set is paying...

[johnnie]

19. That's what I thought

The bride's parents announce it, and mention the groom's parents.

[trof]

15. And these are in-vi-ta-tions.

Never invites.
signed,
Miss Manners
;-)

[johnnie]

18. Sorry

I won't let it happen again.. :(

[JVS]

16. Isn't the traditional way to have the parents of the bride announce it?

[Gormy Cuss]

17. Only bride's parents names -- that's traditional etiquette

because they're hosting, they're paying, it's their party. If both sets of parents are paying for the wedding both would go on the invitation. If the couple is paying, they can do as they please.

Groom's parents names appear on invitations to associated events that they host such as rehearsal dinners.

On edit: the underlying reason for this etiquette is that guests understand who to thank for the lovely event. That is why self-pay couples are expected to list themselves as hosts.

[johnnie]

20. That makes sense

But wouldn't you put something like "to Mr. Blah Blah, son of Mr and Mrs. Blah Blah"?

[Gormy Cuss]

21. Not in standard wording.

Some hosts are generous enough to include the "son of " line but it's neither standard nor required.

There are many books that discuss wedding etiquette(and apparently few people who consult them!)
I think if people did there would be a lot less stress and hurt feelings because there's an independent judge available to broker disputes. Weddings do bring out the worst emotions it seems.

[JVS]

22. No. In old tradition a man is his own entity, so it is not necessary...

to say whose son he is