Print Story with their families
Marriage
By gzt (Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 12:05:20 PM EST) gzt, hatred, shorts, etiquette (all tags)
So, several friends are getting married. And I have the occasion to criticize their invitations.


Most of them are of the following form:
With their families
$BOY and $GIRL
request the honour of your presence
at their marriage
on the tenth of Septober.
Or something like that. Everything after the first line is quite variable and I take particular issue with that line alone - I prefer that they request my presence at their wedding rather than invite me to celebrate their wedding, for instance, but don't really care enough to complain here.

Here are my objections:

  1. It sounds terribly clunky. One might argue formal language sounds clunky, but the traditional language (so and so requests the honour of your presence at the marriage of her daughter blah blah blah to Mr such and such at this location at this time) is really rather simple. "With their families" sounds like crap.
  2. It doesn't make any sense. An event has a host and the host invites people to the event. The invitations are issued by the host. Who's the host? Is it $BOY and $GIRL? Their "families"? The invitation's wording suggests it is the "families" and $BOY and $GIRL. You can't have 10 or 20 hosts. Enough of the charades: $BOY and $GIRL are the hosts and they are inviting me. This isn't some magic crap, this is a party with a host. Compose your invitation accordingly.
  3. A further discussion of why this is nonsensical by discussing where this monstrosity came from. In days of yore, weddings were hosted by the mother of the bride and invitations were issued accordingly. Situations are more complicated these days, since most people getting married these days are not being married out of their mother's care, as it were. Modifications were made to include both parents (hey, there are two...). Then, of course, as people were hosting their own weddings, essentially, and the whole idea of having a wedding became divorced from having one's mother host the wedding (quite rightly), people thought to put both sides on the invitation, since it's just formal wording rather than anything meaningful and there are two sides, after all, and both might be tossing cash at this shindig. Of course, family dynamics being what they are, such a listing of parents can be very "complicated". Accordingly, "with their families", which kind of blunts the whole idea of acknowledging both sides of the equation, which was kind of silly in the first place, but understandable. This is just stupid. A wedding is just a big party. Host invites people to party. Period. Very easy. No need to turn the invitation into an Academy Award acceptance speech, nor to make it a very weird acceptance speech by eliding everybody else out of it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting that everybody should revert to having the mother of the bride host the wedding. I'm saying people should simply say, "$BRIDE and $GROOM request the honour of you presence at their wedding on $TIME at $PLACE. Reception immediately following at $HALL." Only the celebrant "celebrates" the marriage, by the way.

And, response cards. I ignore them and write my own reply unless they indicate a meal selection, in which case I hate them but acquiesce.

OTHER THINGS TO FUEL THE HATE: Crossfit / USA Weightlifting Open. I threw up a little. I guess I won't even join the USAW and compete in weightlifting. Now, I know some people had been making noises about how USAW should make some overtures to @Fit because @Fit has gotten a lot of people interested in the classical lifts, and I probably agree with them, but this is not the way to do it. The way to do it would probably be to throw instruction at them, maybe help them hold non-sanctioned meets to pique their interest in competing, crap like that. This is just nonsense. I sincerely hope for some sort of destruction to result. The USAW is a joke: North Korea does better at the Olympics than we do.

SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT FUEL HATE: My package arrived. Well, that was unexpected. I now have more shorts.

MORE HATRED: I just thought about the USAW again. AAARRRGH.

OTHER HATRED: why doesn't google calendar have a view that's like five weeks and I can scroll up and down a week at a time? They have a month view, but scrolling moves it month-by-month. I HATE THIS. Even Lotus Notes, which is a worse e-mail/calendar/everything solution than Emacs, has this function.

< A Day in the Life -- Inbox: (412/13279) | Ain't no day like it. >
with their families | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
Hosts by duxup (2.00 / 0) #1 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:23:35 PM EST
If mom(s) and dad(s) are a pay'n they can put their names on the card too. 

____
well, I object to that idea. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #2 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:34:06 PM EST
Wedding invitations are not about who is paying. The guests really don't want to know the financial dynamics of the families involved. The wedding invitations are about getting invited to a party hosted by somebody.

If it were about paying, "with their families" is even more lame.

[ Parent ]
Heck it isn't by duxup (2.00 / 0) #7 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:45:45 PM EST
Most parties I go to the host isn't just enjoying a free party they didn't pay for while some dude who paid for it sits in the corner not to be mentioned.  The parents are more accessible and operate more as hosts in my experience than brides and grooms. 

It is also a community event where many of the guests are often the parents invites as well. 

Listing the parents and bride and groom seems pretty accurate for the actual structure of weddings these days.

____
[ Parent ]
there are traditional ways of listing the parents by gzt (2.00 / 0) #8 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:54:43 PM EST
I am perfectly fine with those. "With their families..." is stupid. Listing both sets is fine. "With their families" sucks.

[ Parent ]
and those traditional ways... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #9 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:55:46 PM EST
...indicate the parents are hosting, which is fine by me.

[ Parent ]
Hey hey hey by duxup (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 02:50:37 PM EST
This internet conversation is NOT OVER!

You wait by the door.... I'll be there in a bit.

____
[ Parent ]
actually, there's a time when it's simplest. by LilFlightTest (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:40:18 PM EST
some friends got married. each of them had parents who were divorced and remarried. Rather than list 4 sets of parents, they used the "with their parents" line to acknowledge that the parents were involved in the hosting.
---------
if de-virgination results in me being able to birth hammerhead sharks, SIGN ME UP!!! --misslake
[ Parent ]
see, to my mind... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #13 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 07:45:18 PM EST
...in that instance it's just easier to say you're hosting it yourself. maybe i just have family that's a lot more chill. i mean, they all get mentioned in the program and all stand around with you at the ceremony. the purpose of the invitation is to invite.

[ Parent ]
her mom is nuts by LilFlightTest (2.00 / 0) #14 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 09:06:35 PM EST
must appease psychomom.
---------
if de-virgination results in me being able to birth hammerhead sharks, SIGN ME UP!!! --misslake
[ Parent ]
Ob by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #3 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:35:52 PM EST
Wedding invitations.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
A friend of a friend... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #4 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:38:45 PM EST
...had the Orthodox wedding hymn translated into Elvish and written on their cake. I believe Quenya, not Sindarin.

[ Parent ]
I should hope so! by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #5 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:41:08 PM EST
Sindarin would have been so tacky.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?
[ Parent ]
profane by gzt (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 01:45:23 PM EST
except, i suppose, the Orthodox have been making an effort to put things in the vernacular...

[ Parent ]
Womyn are property of The Patriarchy by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #11 Fri Jul 09, 2010 at 06:52:42 PM EST
amirite?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

We used a post card by johnny (2.00 / 0) #15 Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 10:54:06 AM EST
and it said "John & Betty invite you".

We didn't use last names because we didn't invite anybody who would have the least uncertainty about who John & Betty were.

It was pretty informal & I still think it was an OK thing to to.  It did contain a misspelling. I feel kinda bad about that.

Also, we didn't set a time, we just said "in the afternoon". We were trying to be casual but in retrospect it was a bit cutesy and rude. But nobody seemed to take offense. The wedding was in my parent's back yard, reception in their house & they picked up most of the tab.

The key thing from my point of view is that we're still married 29+ years later.

Of peoples whose invites are in Theophile's link, I wonder what odds are of long-term staying married? (I'm not hazarding any opinion.)

She has effectively checked out. She's an un-person of her own making. So it falls to me.--ad hoc (in the hole)

way cool by gzt (2.00 / 0) #16 Sat Jul 10, 2010 at 12:30:34 PM EST
yeah, "afternoon" seems like a cool thing to say, but i'd hate to come by at 3 and find out the main action had gone on at 1.

[ Parent ]
with their families | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback