To get annoyed that it's another year and I'm addressed as Mr & Mrs Chatnoir by MIL

[chatenoire]

I haven't even changed my name! I'm still Ms + Maiden name. I'd be more OK with Mr & Mrs his surname, but first name + surname just sounds so anachronistic to me.

I've actually made a point by every single time signing our cards the way it should be, but clearly to her it doesn't matter.

No, she addresses all correspondence as Mr and Mrs + my husbands full name (first and surname).

I don't like it, never have, and never will.

Mr and Mrs + my husband's surname I find it slightly more acceptable, but it's still NOT my name.

I get this from my own mother. She addresses correspondence to me using DH's first initial then surname. I don't like it, but she's 87, I can't change her now so I let it go.

Do you sign cards with your surname? - there's strange!

YANBU. We get one to 'Dr and Mrs'. My title is Prof.

My return address has my name ;) but no, as a family we sign as my husband's surname + my surname

I get this too. I am Ms Maiden-Name but my extended family address cards to my husband's 1st and second name i.e. Mr and Mrs John Smith. I rarely see them and they are truly lovely people who were raised in a time when that was what you did, so they genuinely don't mean anything by it so it doesn't annoy me. If someone closer to me did it I'd just point out that my name is X. If they kept doing it after that I probably wouldn't be so polite about it!

I think at Christmas older generation likes being traditional. A lot of cards come as Mr and Mrs his full name in our house.. I kept my maiden name and everyone knows.. doesn't bother me a bit though

And so we should just be respectful and call people by the names they've chosen to be called by, regardless of what we think about their decisions?

Yeah I'd go along with that.

Well, that's nice for you, but most of us don't live in a Thomas Hardy novel, so knowing whose farm belonged to whose father isn't really an issue.

I also don't see what a surname has got to do with 'family identity', particularly when it essentially just means that one partner is automatically subsumed into the other partner's 'family identity' by taking his name. Why does the wife become part of his 'family identity' and not the other way around?

of course we should be respectful but it doesn't look like the Op Mil Is respectful so she can repeat herself again that she isn't. Mrs his name and be offended or she could ignore being called mrshisname and not give Mil that power.

I do pull a bit of a cat's bum face when we get them but as I am not keeping the envelope, I just bung it in the recycling where it belongs. Job done.

It's the way they were taught was correct. Even I was taught that was the correct way.....obviously there us no law to force anyone but I understand older people just carrying on.
I doubt she notices your subtle references in the return address.

Mr and Mrs his initial + our surname = eye roll
Mrs his initial + our surname = grinding of teeth... just why?

Of course I'm far to British to ever say anything ...I guess at least we are married!

Exactly this!!

I don’t understand how anyone - even women who’ve taken their husband’s surname - is OK with being referred to as Mr & Mrs John Smith. With being not just deprioritised, but completely eradicated.

The UK seems so behind the times on this issue.

’Tradition’ is not a reason to go along with eradicating women.

Same sex marriage, where the couple invariably both just keep their own name, has done a lot to break down this tradition.

Imagine saying to two men that one of them is expected to change their surname, and whoever does that also has to be referred to as Mr Other Bloke. It is so ridiculous when you look at it more objectively, and not through rose-tinted ‘tradition’ spectacles…..

I think its unlikely that she will change her habits and I’d imagine a relatively small issue as it happens once a year on an envelope that come to your door I would ignore and not think about it. I’m sure there’s a lot worse mil/dil issues

I'm in my 50s and I was taught to address envelopes like this, so I assume it is even more ingrained in older generations. When I was a child it was very unusual to not take the husband's surname.

If someone has taken their husband's surname I don't include initials anymore, so just Mr and Mrs Surname. If someone hasn't taken the surname, I might just address the envelope with one name (usually the person I know best) as I am lazy!

Well, I’m 50 and was probably taught to address envelopes like this. But stopped doing it as soon as I was able to think for myself. And that was a long, long time ago.

How old is she? It’s been a long time since those traditions mattered. My gm was a right stickler about that, and absolutely scathing about mistakes addressing envelopes as it displayed a lack of education (eg if the county wasn’t included, or there was a comma in the wrong place) and either a lack of social etiquette (unless it was intended as a put down) to confuse the forms of address for a married, divorced and widowed woman.

She made such an impression on me that I cannot address an envelope with thinking of her, even though current social norms are entirely different. But at least I grasped that the object of the exercise was to avoid giving offence! Have you tried asking your mil, with mild curiosity, why she does it? I’d be fascinated to know what her thought process is.

It’s been years since I’ve had reason to send any post to my brother but I always sent it to Mr [sil’s first name surname] to even things out a bit.

Its a tradition that is dying a natural death anyway as very few of the younger generation bother with cards these days. Or at least the ones I know don't seem to.

Just don't acknowledge the card as it clearly only addressed to your partner.

I hope everyone who loves traditions still employs a hermit to live in their garden and pays rent to the local landowners in eels.

YANBU, it's rude to address someone by the wrong name when you know full well what their name is.

The laws of couverture applied to women and slaves - both were property of their master, and in law had his name.

For some reason it’s always been easier for people to grasp what’s wrong with this when it applies to slaves and racism, but harder for people to think clearly about what it means for women (but…but…tradition)

It’s why the term emancipation was used - literally women hopping on the bandwagon because the cause for the emancipation of slaves had gained traction.

It’s weird how persistent the effects have been for women. There are still residual implications in legal contracts and it really is important to call out every last bit of this belief. It’s not ok to use “he” to mean “he or she”, or man or mean human, or to eradicate someone’s actual name - in what other context would you think it’s ok to do that??

Clearly doesn't believe women should obtain higher education!