Weird wording on wedding invitation

[anna1978]

We largely paid for our own wedding, how would you word it then?

Anna x

 

[puzzleannie]

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.

actually, no it would not, since the invitation is NOT supposed to convey who is actually writing the checks

 

[jrabs]

actually, no it would not, since the invitation is NOT supposed to convey who is actually writing the checks

Correct. Both parents are really handing over their children to the spouse-to-be regardless of who is footing the bill.

Problem is that if we are not the bride or groom or parents of such, then it should not bother us. It’s their wedding and I think people should just let them be. We need not always have an opinion to be discussed when we do not agree with something. Most often, opinions are offered but not wanted.

 

[1ke]

We largely paid for our own wedding, how would you word it then?

Anna x

There is not a one-to-one correspondence between paying and hosting. You can pay for it, and still have your parents host it.

It’s your choice.

Your parents hosting:
Mr and Mrs X
request the honour of your presence…

Both parents hosting

Mr and Mrs X
Mr and Mrs Y
request the honour of your presence…

You and fiance hosting

Miss Susan X
and
Mr John Y
request the honour of your presence…

Everyone hosting, bride and groom as primary:

Miss Susan X
and
Mr John Y
together with their parents
request the honour of your presence

 

[1ke]

actually, no it would not, since the invitation is NOT supposed to convey who is actually writing the checks

Hosting and paying are not the same thing.

 

[puzzleannie]

Hosting and paying are not the same thing.

exactly, the idea that we are co-hosting should not imply we are splitting the check, it should imply just that, the parents of the bride and groom are inviting family and friends to celebrate the occasion.

 

[St_Gabriel]

You wouldn’t like mine. I had the word “children” on it.

 

[KCtheMommy]

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.

Ohps, blame the pregnancy if I sounded snippy. I had a LONG day yesterday. I wasn’t trying to sound snippy nor condescending. I am sorry if it came out/across that way. I was honestly asking why you were annoyed meaning what EXACTLY bothers you. I got it – the SPECIFIC use of the word “CHILDREN.” OK that’s what I didn’t understand. That’s all I was asking! Promise! I didn’t know if you meant the overall practice of the parents being listed once a “child” reaches a certain age. I just wanted to answer you my knowledge on the subject of WHY it’s done. For understanding.

It is kinda weird that people in their thirties would lump themselves into the “children” category, rather than use “son and daughter.” Here’s a couple of theories:

1. In this day and age of divorce, a set of parents still together is celbrated and therefor mentioned on the invite.
2. Said two sets of parents MIGHT both be paying for the wedding, hence the head’s up.
3. The bride is becomign a bride-zilla and wants everything to be “perfect” right on down tot he etiquette of the wedding invitations.

My guess is number 2! Either way, just get a chuckle out of it, and enjoy the wedding – hey free food and champagne. You can always giggle imaging the bride and groom up front in diapers right? LOL

 

[SMHW]

I think one of the issues is that the concept of hosting a get-together, wedding or otherwise, is extremely foreign to people today. The invitation has become more of a tribute and the wedding something of a pot-luck to which the families of those getting married contribute a location and food and the guests contribute presents.

For one thing, no one even considers that the actual marriage ceremony, whether in a church or other setting, is actually what is often claimed to be hosted on the invitation. Everyone’s thoughts are usually already on the reception.

Curiously, the invitations often include the almighty reception as an afterthought. It’s just some little card which states something like, “Reception to follow at 4M at the Royal Oaks Country Club”. But it is this reception, and the dollars that go to it, that seems to be the cause of all this worry over the wording of the invitation since many people feel that dollars spent ought to be reflected.

Actually most invitations that I’ve seen do include both sets of parents even if the couple themselves are paying for most of the wedding expenses. But they do so in a way mentioned earlier:

Mr. and Mrs. Parents of the Bride invite you to the marriage of their daughter Mary to Mr. Future Son-In-Law, son of Mr. and Mrs. Parents of the Groom.
Actually that is the simple version because often one or both sets of parents are divorced and re-married so somehow they need to squeeze four sets of (legally) married people into the mix along with the future marrieds in order that no-one’s feelings get hurt.

 

[lak611]

I think one of the issues is that the concept of hosting a get-together, wedding or otherwise, is extremely foreign to people today. The invitation has become more of a tribute and the wedding something of a pot-luck to which the families of those getting married contribute a location and food and the guests contribute presents.

For one thing, no one even considers that the actual marriage ceremony, whether in a church or other setting, is actually what is often claimed to be hosted on the invitation. Everyone’s thoughts are usually already on the reception.

Curiously, the invitations often include the almighty reception as an afterthought. It’s just some little card which states something like, “Reception to follow at 4M at the Royal Oaks Country Club”. But it is this reception, and the dollars that go to it, that seems to be the cause of all this worry over the wording of the invitation since many people feel that dollars spent ought to be reflected.

There would have to be a mention of the reception (and RSVP for it), because the average church has more than enough room for anybody who comes; the hall needs to know how much food to prepare, how much liquor to order, etc. That’s why the invitations do not demand an RSVP for the ceremony, but require an RSVP for the reception.

 

[CarrieH]

You and fiance hosting

Miss Susan X
and
Mr John Y
request the honour of your presence…

We paid for our wedding ourselves and this is what we did, only with a more contemporary wording, “Miss X and Mr. Y invite you to share in our joy as we exchange marriage vows…” If any of you are purists and this offends you, just be glad that we didn’t do the sort of thing that my non-religious cousin’s daughter did. Her invitations had some ridiculous list of the “Top 10 Reasons to Get Married,” which was supposed to be whimsical and humorous. It had such things as “Get lots of gifts,” “Get to take a fancy vacation,” and that sort of thing. I thought that anyone who was immature enough to find that funny was not mature enough to get married!

As far as being adult “children,” my mother is 80 and I’m well on the way to senior citizen status myself. I call her every morning to check on her, and she always says, “Carolyn Kay, my baby!” once she hears my voice on the other end of the phone. I’ll always be her baby since I am the youngest, and I’m just glad that I still have my Mama to call me that!

 

[ThyKingdomCome]

Our wedding invitation was very similar to what the OP wrote. I think we wrote:

“Brides Parents” and “Grooms Parents” invite you to celebrate with them as their children, “Bride” and “Groom” are joined in the sacrament of marriage. (or something like that)

It was that way for 2 reasons:

1 - My dh and I, and my parents (who were paid for the wedding), all thought it would be nice to have both sets of parents listed on the inviation. After all, many of the people invited were being invited purely as friends of the grooms parents, and they were providing the groom. It just seemed incomplete for us to not acknowledge their important role in the lives that were about to be joined, as well as their important role in the wedding and following party.

2 - Although my parents did pay for the wedding, they felt no need to tell everyone about it. The idea that the invitation conveys who is paying the bill seems way off the point of a wedding invitation. It’s not about the brides parents showing off how rich or generous they are, or about pointing out that some people paid, and others didn’t. It is about the sacrament that is taking place, and there seemed to be no reason to flaunt who was paying when it shouldn’t matter to the guests anyway. If they need to know who to thank at the end of the reception, there would be many other ways to find that out.

Plus, the word “children” doesn’t bother me at all. It has 2 definitions, and we were obviously using the second one (meaning the offspring of a person, not a person under the age of 18). It didn’t sound wierd to me at all.

And the way we worded it really did convey most accurately what was happening. Dh and I were receiving a sacrament. BOTH sets of our parents were celebrating it, and THEY BOTH wanted many the invitees to join in that celebration. The traditional wording, while having the benefit of being traditional, may not have conveyed the tone of the wedding as well.

 

[Truly_Beloved]

We largely paid for our own wedding, how would you word it then?

Anna x

We paid for our own wedding. We wanted to honor both sets of parents on the invitation, and our wording went like this (it’s really long… ):

Believing that the Holy Sacrament of
Matrimony is ordained by God
and seeking eternal life in the Holy Spirit
<bride’s full name>
and
<groom’s full name>
together with their parents
<bride’s parents’ full names>
and
<groom’s parents’ full names>
request the honour of your presence
when they vow their lives to one another
and become one in Christ
on Saturday, the
two thousand and three
at two o’clock Nuptial Mass

<city, state>

I made up our wording, since I couldn’t find a format that was really religious and included everyone’s name.

 

[armywife]

Just imagine if both parents are divorced and remarried.

Mr & Mrs A&B and Mr & Mrs C&D
blah blah their daughter

blah blah son of

Mr & Mrs E&F and Mr & Mrs G&H

Talk about confusing!

 

[Joya]

Hello All,

Thanks for your replies! It looks as if most posters disagree with my disapproval of the word “children” on the invites. That’s ok; I just wanted to throw the idea out there to see what others thought.

I do, however, think it’s nice to have both sets of parents’ names on the invites. I would just try to find a way to exclude “children.”

Thanks again for all the (name removed by moderator)ut even though my mind isn’t changed.

 

[Joya]

I find your objection to be weird, not the invitation.

Ouch! That stung a bit

 

[LilyM]

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.

Shouldn’t be getting married? When the parents are so overjoyed at the event that they’re acting as hosts of the reception, so to speak, as the invitations are being sent in their names?

Which is proper at weddings - the Bride and Groom are the guests of honour but the parents are the hosts.

And children is children - it refers to their familial relationship, which never changes, not their age.

If I live to be 70 and my mother 100 I’ll still be her child. And she certainly never calls me ‘baby’ or anything like that.

 

[Nepenthe]

Oh I know, LilyM! And that’s why I said it’s possibly more ‘awkward’ than anything else! The whole marriage tradition is kinda about being seen as fully adult and independent, forming a new household, and as such no longer part of the parental household. That’s really all I meant!

Sure, the parents often certainly help with the invitations, most especially if they are the hosts and funding the joyful event. But it’s also primarily about the people who are getting united and their dignity as adults making an adult commitment, so I’d hope that any parents would ask their children (yes, I know that’s the term ) how they’d prefer such wordings if there is any doubt. If the couple prefers to be referred to as ‘such’s and such’s children’ then okay!

 

[MidnightSun02]

We added both sets of parents (my husband’s parents and mine) to our invitation…as well as ‘children’. I honestly don’t see anything wrong with this.

My sister and her husband did the same thing as well as my mother-in-law and father-in-law when they were married.

I guess I dont’ see it as whoever is requesting your presence is the one who paid for everything but more that the parents of their children both feel that the marriage of their children is something to be celebrated and that both families share in the joy.