Weird wording on wedding invitation

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joya
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joya

Guest
Just want to know what my friends on CAF think about wedding invitations that refer to the bride and groom as “children” of the parents who are hosting the wedding.

I got my cousin’s invitation in the mail today. I am sure you guys are familar with the wording, but just in case, it goes like this:

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith
and
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Jones
request the honor of your presence
at the marriage of their children
Bride’s name
and
Groom’s name

I have never approved of this wording, but haven’t discussed it with anyone yet. What do you guys think? Isn’t there a better way to word the invitation if both parents’ names are on the invite?

I mean, are two people getting married really children? Esp. in my cousin’s case, it seems rather awkward. They are in their mid-30’s and it’s the 2nd marriage for her.

Why is this word choice used? It seems inappropriate and out of context. Opinions, anyone?
 
Joya said:
Just want to know what my friends on CAF think about wedding invitations that refer to the bride and groom as “children” of the parents who are hosting the wedding.

I got my cousin’s invitation in the mail today. I am sure you guys are familar with the wording, but just in case, it goes like this:

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith
and
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Jones
request the honor of your presence
at the marriage of their children
Bride’s name
and
Groom’s name
Click to expand...
The traditional wording would be:

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the honour of your presence at the marriage of their daughter (bride’s given name) to Mr. (groom’s given name and surname) on Saturday (day) (Month) in the year of Our Lord (year).
 
This is proper etiquette. It is a very LONG standing tradition in etiquette. In fact: to NOT write the invitation this way, especially for those never-married-previously types, it would be an insult to the parents to not do it precisely like this. No matter their age.

I do not understand what you are asking - or rather what you find offensive? Typically one remain’s another one’s child until they die. No matter their age. A parent marrying-off a child is a big deal anywhere; hence the reason for this etiquette (also to acknowledge the possibility of familial business connections that benefit both of the parents and the new couple, hence the reason for this “etiquette” in the first place. Old fashioned maybe, but still works the way it was intended to this day.).

Why are you annoyed?
 
KCtheMommy said:
This is proper etiquette. It is a very LONG standing tradition in etiquette. In fact: to NOT write the invitation this way, especially for those never-married-previously types, it would be an insult to the parents to not do it precisely like this. No matter their age.

I do not understand what you are asking - or rather what you find offensive? Typically one remain’s another one’s child until they die. No matter their age. A parent marrying-off a child is a big deal anywhere; hence the reason for this etiquette (also to acknowledge the possibility of familial business connections that benefit both of the parents and the new couple, hence the reason for this “etiquette” in the first place. Old fashioned maybe, but still works the way it was intended to this day.).

Why are you annoyed?
Click to expand...
You are correct. The variations I have seen only mention the parents of the bride (and refer to her as their daughter). Usually, nowadays, it means that the parents are paying for the wedding. Although, even my parents who were married in 1958 chose to use a more modern wording, since they paid for their own wedding.
 
KCtheMommy said:
This is proper etiquette. It is a very LONG standing tradition in etiquette. In fact: to NOT write the invitation this way, especially for those never-married-previously types, it would be an insult to the parents to not do it precisely like this. No matter their age.

I do not understand what you are asking - or rather what you find offensive? Typically one remain’s another one’s child until they die. No matter their age. A parent marrying-off a child is a big deal anywhere; hence the reason for this etiquette (also to acknowledge the possibility of familial business connections that benefit both of the parents and the new couple, hence the reason for this “etiquette” in the first place. Old fashioned maybe, but still works the way it was intended to this day.).

Why are you annoyed?
Click to expand...
Ok, I am slightly annoyed, but not offended. I just think people who are marrying shouldn’t be referred to as children. They’re adults. Personally, once someone reaches the age of 18, I don’t consider him/her a child. A son or daughter, yes, but not a child.

As I stated in my original post, I think the wording is out of context and doesn’t seem appropriate for the occasion. I didn’t intend to argue. In fact, my post asks for opinions. If you and others think the wording is acceptable, I am fine with that perspective and can respect that. I merely wanted to know what others think. Thanks for letting me know your thoughts.
 
Son or daughter is fine, children not…in my opinion, a child is by definition a minor (well, in my native Holland anyway!), a son or daughter can be an adult.

Anna x
 
I think mentioning the both parents is weird.

This invitation implies to me that the parents are paying for the wedding and reception for 2 thirty somethings.

Again, weird.

These are adults getting married. They have been on their own for quite some time. One of them has been married before. I don’t know - it’s a little strange to me.
 
From Webster’s:
Main Entry: child
Function: noun
Inflected Form: plural chil·dren
1 : a son or daughter of any age and usually including one formally adopted —compare ISSUE
2 : a person below an age specified by law : INFANT, MINOR <assault on a child under 16 years of age> —compare ADULT
Click to expand...
Since the context of a wedding invitation is quite clear, I see no absolutely suggestion with the use fo the word “children” that the persons in question are minors.
 
KCtheMommy said:
I do not understand what you are asking - or rather what you find offensive? Typically one remain’s another one’s child until they die. No matter their age.

Why are you annoyed?
Click to expand...
Precisely. My father went to his death bed calling me his baby girl.And I was 50 when he passed away.

Kathy
 
I think that’s the wording we used on our invitations. I never thought anything of it. DH and I paid for our own wedding, but felt it polite to list both sets of parents.

I’m not sure what the issue is with “children.” We are our parents’ children even if we’re old and gray.
 
It looks like the couple wanted to list both sets of parents–very nice in my opinion–and were also trying to avoid being too wordy in saying john son of and blah and blah, jane daughter of blah and blah. Nothing to get your feathers ruffled about.
 
When we got married, I consulted several etiquette books about the way the invitation should read. This is an acceptable format although other formats may have been as well. What I would take from this invitation is that both sets of parents are still married to each other and are supporting the wedding, whether that be financially or through other means.
 
I am my parents’ child and always will be. Child(ren) describes a relationship not an age.

I find nothing odd or offensive about the wording. It is grammatically correct, and employs proper etiquette.

I find your objection to be weird, not the invitation.
 
Well, speaking as someone getting married in the very near future…I do agree with the OP that it’s a bit awkward. There’s a conflicting vibe to it, if you see how I mean. Sure, the ‘aww, they still think of those two as their dear little children’ feeling is, uh, okay I guess, but there’s also the not-so-okay faint implication that ‘these are children, and as children, they shouldn’t be getting married’ somehow.

I do like the traditional approach lak611 laid out, and that’s probably very close to what our invitations will say (augh, we are still running behind! Heeeellllp!) I’d be rather mortified if my folks (who are being kind enough to help with them, whew) used the first wording. It’s not so much offensive, but it does sound odd, and a little tacky. :o
 
I don’t care for the “children” wording but I do like having parents’ names on the invitation. I can’t remember how ours was worded but it accomplished the above.
 
Joya said:
Ok, I am slightly annoyed, but not offended. I just think people who are marrying shouldn’t be referred to as children. They’re adults. Personally, once someone reaches the age of 18, I don’t consider him/her a child. A son or daughter, yes, but not a child.

.
Click to expand...
what word would you substitute for “children”? offspring? scions?

it is a traditional wording (and it has nothing to do with who is paying for anything, but implies that both sets of parents are hosts–not how much in dollars they contributd to the cost)
 
Nothing wrong with the invitation, Joya. 😉 The most traditional custom is for the parents of the bride (less traditionally - both bride and groom) to pay for the wedding party. That makes them the hosts. The reference to the bride and groom as children is somewhat parental, perhaps implying some patronage. After all, a man is not the head of the family so long as his father or in some cases another senior male relative lives and only becomes the head of a minor branch of his family when he marries. This doesn’t really mean that the “children” are in custody on par with little children. In genealogical tables of kings and nobles, if they don’t write “offspring” or “issue”, they write “children” - no “sons and daughters”, “sons/daughter” or anything. Those dynasties, well-known families or, let’s say, Scottish or Irish clans, follow the example of a patriarchal structure in which adult males are still adult, they’re capable of making decisions, conducting business, leading troops and so on, but there is still some sort of “overlordship” of the father (senior male). Much like in the Bible. 😉

Now, I’m not saying it’s always oh-so-great to be referred to as a “child” or especially included in “children” when one’s long-adult, but in this particular example, it doesn’t look bad. I don’t think parents ever really mean to reduce their children to… well, children, it’s just it looks a bit different from their perspective. When you’re 40, 17 or 22 doesn’t really make that much difference, I guess. Myself I’m 24 and I just grin and bear it because none of the senior relatives or friends’ senior relatives etc really means anything demeaning, although it stings sometimes.
 
As I am completely in the thick of wedding planning, I have to say, that if both the bride and groom’s parents are contributing heavily to the financial aspect of the wedding, then the wording is both correct and appropriate.

I will be 28 when I get married next year, and the invitation will be Mr and Mrs.Accountant cordially invite you to join them in the celebration of the marriage of their daughter Miss OldAgeGuru
to Mr. Electrical Engineer IV son of Mr and Mrs CFO III on X date at St. Mary’s Church on Oct __, 2008 with a reception following immediately after at Ritzy Country Club

If both of our parents were paying it would read EXACTLY as the invitation you received. It is the correct format according to every ettiquette book known to mankind.

Besides wouldn’t it sound silly if it read

Mr., and Mrs X
and
Mr. and Mrs Y
invite you to join them in the celebration of their adults/age of majority, registered voters/legally able to drink;/rent a car/ serve in the millitary/ X &Y on April 5 2007
 
Here is what I would do if I wanted both parents’ names on the invite:

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the honour of your presence at the marriage of their daughter (bride’s given name) to Mr. (groom’s given name and surname), son of Mr. and Mrs. Bill Jones, on Saturday (day) (Month) in the year of Our Lord (year).
 
CatholicSam said:
Here is what I would do if I wanted both parents’ names on the invite:

Mr. and Mrs. John Smith request the honour of your presence at the marriage of their daughter (bride’s given name) to Mr. (groom’s given name and surname), son of Mr. and Mrs. Bill Jones, on Saturday (day) (Month) in the year of Our Lord (year).
Click to expand...
This invitation would only be appropriate if Mr. & Mrs. Smith alone were the hosts.

If *both *the Smiths and the Joneses were the hosts, the wording would require a format in which they were both listed at the top.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top