Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2083220)

:D

Did I mention that it was also common for the bride's family to display all the wedding gifts? (Well, except for china, silver and crystal -- for that, a single, full place setting would be laid.) Friends would call on the bride's family for the express purpose of ooohing and ahhhhing over the gifts.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2083303)

THANK YOU! I don't get it either. It's one thing to have a destination wedding for immediate family only. Once you're inviting all kinds of people, it makes no sense to me. Do you really want me to spend $1000 to go to some destination for your wedding? It isn't going to happen and it feels selfish (on their part) when I get those invites.

Originally Posted by Benzgirl (Post 2083310)

^^^^ Agree on all fronts. All of the destination weddies that I have known were immediate family, Best Man and Maid of Honor.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2083086)

Technically, as Shellfish notes, an RSVP card isn't required even if an RSVP is expected. For that matter, the phrase "RSVP" isn't required. It was added as a reminder to those who apparently didn't know that one should always RSVP. And the cards were put in to make it easier for people to remember to RSVP and actually do it.

That said, let me tell you about the small Southern town of my youth. This was the normal practice when I was growing up: Unless the wedding was truly going to be private (family and maybe close friends), it was understood that everyone in town was invited. Literally. Invitations were only sent to out-of-town guests and family/close friends in town (because, of course, they'd want to see it). A few weeks before the wedding, a copy of the invitation would appear (1) in the church bulletin of the bride's church (and the groom's if he was from town), and (2) in the town newspaper. No, I'm not making this up. Depending on the time of year, the Wednesday paper could have two or three invitations in it.

This system actually worked quite well. Because this was how things had always been done, one could predict how many would really attend fairly well. Many if not most people would RSVP informally, like if they ran into the bride's mother at the grocery store and said "We're so looking forward to the wedding." And sometimes, when friends of the bride's mom would ask "what can I do to help," the answer was "Call A-C in the phone book." What this meant was calling "everyone" (all involved knew who to call) to say "So-and-so asked me to call to say she's hoping you'll be at the wedding next Saturday." This gave a good general count as well.

It has to be remembered that sit-down-meal receptions were unheard of. (I think I was in my late 20s or early 30s before I ever went to a reception where there was a true meal, and in that case, the bride's family was from "away.") The typical reception was held in the church hall, at the country club or maybe another similar venue, or at the bride's home. The food was all finger food, though it could be substantial finger food. No alcohol if the reception was at a church (unless it was the Episcopal church).

And don't even get me started on the newspaper write-ups. They could cover half a page.

Originally Posted by MysticCat (Post 2083220)

Did I mention that it was also common for the bride's family to display all the wedding gifts? (Well, except for china, silver and crystal -- for that, a single, full place setting would be laid.) Friends would call on the bride's family for the express purpose of ooohing and ahhhhing over the gifts.

Originally Posted by aephi alum (Post 2083265)

If a person is not explicitly listed on the wedding invitation envelope, he or she is NOT INVITED. PERIOD.

The members of a couple who are dating but living separately should each receive his/her own invitation, and it is acceptable to invite one and not the other.

The members of a couple who are engaged but living separately should each receive his/her own invitation, and it is NOT acceptable to invite one and not the other.

The members of a couple who are living together are considered engaged (whether they are or not) and should receive one invitation, addressed to "Miss Donna Noble" <newline> "Mr. Lance Bennett". It is not acceptable to invite one and not the other.

A married couple should receive one invitation, addressed to "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith", or to "Ms. Gwen Cooper and Mr. Rhys Williams" if they do not have the same last name. If they have children and the children are invited, their names should go on the inner envelope, e.g. "Mr. and Mrs. John Smith" <newline> "Mary, Sara, and George". If the children are not invited, their names should be omitted from the inner envelope.

A single, divorced, or widowed man is "Mr. John Smith". A single woman is "Miss Rose Tyler". A widow is "Mrs. Peter Tyler" and a divorced woman is "Mrs. Jane Doe" (sorry, couldn't think of any Doctor Who characters who fit that profile ;) ).

This is trumped where someone has a professional title, e.g. "Dr. Martha Jones" or "Dr. and Mrs. John Smith".

I'll shut up about naming conventions now. :D

According to Miss Manners, it's not necessary to include RSVP cards - the invited guest(s) "should" know that they should write a "yes" or "no" letter back - but in this day and age, if you don't include RSVP cards, you're going to be making a lot of phone calls.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2083425)

I have a sneaking suspicion that if that time comes to pass you will make very clear to loved ones or anyone else who may be inviting you to weddings that they ain't getting a cake plate if your invite says Mrs Droleshubby. :)

When the person expresses a preference, that ALWAYS trumps the "rules" of etiquette. I think it's more or less always been that way. But if you don't know the person that well, the rules are there to fall back on.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2083437)

putting up a roadside memorial. Because I think those things are dumb.

Originally Posted by honeychile (Post 2083446)

As much as I believe in etiquette, my mother's saying of
"Politeness is to do and say
The kindest thing in the kindest way."

So, once you've made your calling name clear, it would be more proper to call you by which you wish to be called.

Originally Posted by AGDee (Post 2083303)

THANK YOU! I don't get it either. It's one thing to have a destination wedding for immediate family only. Once you're inviting all kinds of people, it makes no sense to me. Do you really want me to spend $1000 to go to some destination for your wedding? It isn't going to happen and it feels selfish (on their part) when I get those invites.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2083437)

*Random aside: I also have a strict rule that if I die in a car accident or by something stupid that was my fault, my friends and family are forbidden from a) making my death the spur for some cause to ban whatever stupid shit I was doing and b) putting up a roadside memorial. Because I think those things are dumb.

Originally Posted by Drolefille (Post 2083417)

Should I get married, anything addressed To "Mrs. [spouse] Doe" is getting thrown in the trash, wedding invitation, lottery winnings or long lost relative's plea for help, doesn't matter, whether my spouse is living or dead.

Naming conventions need to catch up to the realities of modern society. It's why most of the Dear Abby/Ann Landers/Miss Manners sort of thing is just so inapplicable to today. When there's no reason for the 'etiquette' other than 'that's how it's done' we're doing it wrong.

Originally Posted by 33girl (Post 2083425)

I have a sneaking suspicion that if that time comes to pass you will make very clear to loved ones or anyone else who may be inviting you to weddings that they ain't getting a cake plate if your invite says Mrs Droleshubby. :)

When the person expresses a preference, that ALWAYS trumps the "rules" of etiquette. I think it's more or less always been that way. But if you don't know the person that well, the rules are there to fall back on.