To think this is an antiquated form of address?

[nomoreheroes]

Long time lurker, first time poster. I received a letter today addressed to "Mr and Mrs D nomoreheroes". D being my husband's initial. While it did concern both of us, it was in response to an application I had made; so why not Mrs nomoreheroes and Mr nomoreheroes (in that order ) or just Mrs? I realise I probably can't call myself a card carrying feminist as I go by Mrs and have taken my husband's surname but I do believe in equality and neither my husband or I are "the boss" in this relationship. He'd have expected the letter to be addressed to me alone or both of us equally.
I'm not that bothered - well maybe a little miffed to be fair - but it just looks weird in 2016. AIBU?

Being addressed as Mrs husbandsurname is fine, absolutely not as Mrs Husbandfirstname or initial husband surname. I don't use DH surname, but fine if people address me as that. But not his initial as well (probably only my mil does though!). Point of order to those saying it is correct, or Debretts orders it, this form of address is not necessarily correct, it depends on family pecking order and precedence. If your DH is, for eg John Smith, if his mother is alive, she is Mrs Smith, and you are Mrs John Smith. If she is dead, you are then Mrs Smith. Or we could all just be glad that we don't have to abide by the notions laid out by Debretts in this day and age.

I am probably in the Rabbit & Co group.

For me, getting married in the first place was to do with traditional ideals, fantasies almost, based on my grandparents. I always liked traditional manners and rituals too. Forms of address went with that. When I got married it was the most important thing in my life and I never thought of a life of just my own. I am still married.

I am not advocating that but describing how it was.

If I were doing it now I would probably keep my own name or make a mixture, I don't really see why the husband's surname should stay more than his first. The surname of the husband makes a wife especially chattel like so I cannot see much logic in being very upset with Mrs John Smith but not Mrs Own Name Smith as that only half eliminates the problem.

What is it they do in Spain? The wives and husband's surnames are different, each linked to their original family names, and rather complicated, but their system may be better.

And too, why have Mrs or Mr or Ms. They are all archaic and Royal garden-partyish.They are titles like any other and all link the person to some position in life
while without them a person stands as an individual.

Now, after this thread, I realise how sensitive young women are about it, I will be sure to address them as Ms Their Own Name + Surname in future, and not think I was being rude.

To older friends I shall probably carry on with the old form.

I'm older. I'm 52. And of the generation of 1980s feminists who were all Ms.

Asked DH, he says that yes, he's really happy to be married to me and will ask to be addressed as Mr Katharina from now on.
'Mum of' is different and 'wife/husband of' also has its place - if introduced to someone you know through kids/spouse. Personally I don't feel the need for my friends or relatives, or the phone company, to address me as 'wife of' though. Am still a person.

That was an interesting post kinddogstail. I'm glad to hear you've thought about the matter, although you're probably about to get the flaming of a lifetime for saying that taking the husband's surname makes a wife chattel like! It's good that you won't be using Mrs Husbandsfirstname Husbandssurname with younger women unless they specifically want you to.

That's heartening katharina. I always feel very sorry for women people who tell us how glad they are to use their spouse's name/s as a sign of pride and devotion and yet are married to people who apparently are neither proud nor devoted enough to do the same. Tragic.

I do have friends that I met through another parenting forum , they always call me Rabbit, rather than my real name as Rabbit is all they knew me by for years before we became RL friends. To them DH is Mr Rabbit and he thinks it's great - doesn't make him feel like a chattel!

I expect that if I had asked DH to take my name instead of me taking his he might have accepted it BUT legally it isn't as straight forward. For me to take his name it was just a case of showing the marriage certificate and I am legally entitled to take his name. Friends of ours DID go with wife's name (husband was glad to get rid of awful surname) and they said it had been pretty difficult.

I also think plenty of younger women like to use their husbands name. We had a lady at work who eloped at 21, she came into work the following week absolutely thrilled to be telling us she was now Mrs John Smith and couldn't wait for me to get her new pass with her name on it.... the pass just had Mrs Smith on it though!

Don't worry, she'll mature and realise she's her own person.

I'm just so glad this ridiculous nonsense is dying out.

Legally it's entirely straightforward for a husband to change his name to his wife's, actually. There is no change of name deed required full stop when changing one's name. In England and Wales at least. Banks et al do like to have a paper trail, although this isn't a legal requirement at all, but this can be accomplished easily by printing one off the internet for free and completing it. Absolute piece of piss, legally uncomplicated. If your friends had trouble stillrabbit, they were doing it wrong, and they certainly didn't have trouble because of any legal reasons.

Regarding your chattel point, of course it won't make your DH feel like a chattel. Because it isn't a custom hailing from a time when men were chattel. So, like, no shit Sherlock.

It's pretty straightforward for a man to change his name. We double barrelled. husband used marriage cert to change name for lots of stuff - just as I did - but Pasport people wanted a Deed Poll, so he did one online for a few quid and zero hassle.

No way would I ever change my name on marriage if my husband wasn't changing his too. We're equals. If i'm changing my name, he's happy to do it too.

Or is it?
The correct form would be Mrs Husbandinitial Husbandsurname only if he is not the oldest brother. For example, I am Mrs Husbandsurname, but my sister in law is Mrs B Husbandsurname... on the other hand .... while I may occasionally be known as that.... I am totally Socksey in my own right and rarely use his name....

I think it's quite insulting for women to call other women immature for being happy and excited to take their husband's name.

I was excited to change my name after marriage and I'm proud to be my husband's wife and to be Mrs W. I like tradition and have embraced it with regards to my name.

I also write out correspondence as Mr & Mrs J Smith (John Smith), I did so very recently on some thank yous to relatives. Before this thread, I was oblivious to anyone taking offence to it. To me, that is the correct way and how I was taught.

I'm in my twenties, in case anyone is wondering.

Well you're wrong. It's not the correct way at all.

When I married my first husband my mum got us a door plaque that said 'Mr & Mrs his name oursurname' that went in the bin. I told my mother I was married not assimilated. I only took his surname because I liked it better but I wasn't Mrs anything. Just recently received a wedding invite addressed the same way. It really really irrates me. Dh spent a 'fun' day calling me by his name

Well, I'm 40, been married for 10 years and I love being called Mrs Husband's initial or Husband's first name and Husband's Surname. I even insisted that our chequebook is printed as Mr & Mrs J Smith (John Smith) and not any other form. But that's just me. Don't give two hoots about what other forms other people use.

That's interesting Mrsw28 - that you prefer the old form even though you are in your twenties.
A kindred spirit to what I and many of my friends were (and Rabbit & Co). I wish you every happiness.

After reading this thread I was planning to be careful to never address any one young with this form of address. Would you mind if someone just wrote,
X 28,
Ms X 20,
or Mrs X 28?

That's interesting Socksey, but doesn't knowing the son's family position depend on the person writing knowing the other family members? That is not always possible. Also, what happens when addressing the father in relation to the eldest son, if they are both living at the same address together with a younger son?

I did know that rule used to apply to children: With girls the eldest would be Miss Smith, and the younger girls Miss Susan Smith and Miss Mary Smith. With boys the eldest would be Master Smith and a younger Master John Smith. So what you point out must be part of that pattern.
I wonder if anyone uses those forms with children now? Probably only on very formal invitations.

But WHY Billben? Why is his name more important than yours? I don't understand why someone would "love" that, unless they have a major inferiority complex. Is self-esteem an issue for you?

If you were that traditional, you wouldn't have a surname at all. A considerably older custom.

Harlot, that would be rather impractical though, wouldn't it?

Kind, I wouldn't mind if I received something addressed to me as Ms but I'd prefer Mrs, it wouldn't prompt me to write an AIBU thread.

Some MNers get really hostile about issues like this and it doesn't sit well with me. I wouldn't call myself a feminist but I'm not some hushed up little woman. It seems that you must be an extremist of either side, there is no middle ground with some people

Hardly extreme, to not want to be addressed by someone else's name!

You're right - nobody who agrees with this archaic notion is a feminist.

They clearly see themselves as inferior to men.

It would indeed mrsw, but then if you were fussed about practicalities you'd not change your name at all. That's the faff free option. No ringing round everywhere, giving copies of marriage certificates to banks etc. On a purely practical level, you'd probably have a job getting the GP to address your smear test invitation to Mrs Husbandsfirstname Husbandsfirstname. Or get work to call you Trevor Bumface if you were actually called Claire Bumface.

Also, you need to reassess your understanding of the term extremist if you think it applies to a woman who doesn't want to be called by a name that's not hers.

I'm older. I'm 52. And of the generation of 1980s feminists who were all Ms.
If you were born around 1964, there was such a dramatic social shift from those years onwards motherinferiror that people from that era were much more likely to think as you about Ms. when they grew up.

Some people, including those from before that era, do not like Ms very much either. They feel it is used as the best of a bad job for fear of sounding too rude through dropping any form of title whatsoever.

Once I wrote a letter to someone older than I am who had been a widow for many years and was known by her own name. As I knew she was quite modern in her views, though old fashioned in her education and also meticulous in formal manners, I wrote 'Dear Ms XXXX'
She replied to me with 'Dear Anne KindDogs'.

I felt shocked and thought she was being a bit rude, then I realised she simply felt Ms was a bit unnecessary and possibly awkward.

I would have thought though in a work situation Ms Surname just has to be used if people are not on first name terms.

If you were that traditional, you wouldn't have a surname at all. A considerably older custom.
That would be fun HarlotBronte!

Leonardo, Boticelli.
Elizabeth.
Me

That's interesting. Where do you know of instances of that for ordinary people Harlot?

Like I said, hostile.

This thread is no longer about whether the style of correspondence is antiquated, more about bashing women who are fond of tradition and choose to take their husband's surname when they marry.

Lovely touch belittling me by implying that I expect all my correspondence to be addressed to me using my husband's initial, which is not what I said at all.

Well, there are a few cultures still not using surnames even now. So any 'ordinary person' who happens to be a member of one of those groups. For those cultures using surnames now, any ordinary person who lived prior to their adoption. There's more below:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_name#History

I know, wikipedia, but it'll do for our purposes. Also a lot of useful information on there about cultures where women don't namechange on marriage.

If you want a modern British example, this lady below is not a Leonardo or Elizabeth type as far as I can tell:

www.theguardian.com/world/2007/oct/29/gender.familyandrelationships