# I am a person! "Mr and Mrs John Smith" & why not "Mr and Mrs Jane Smith"



## ali (19 Jan 2010)

It drives me demented to receive post addressed to Mr and Mrs John  Smith (not least because my name is not Smith). I cannot believe this outdated form of title address is still used for married people. I actually took my husband's surname - but even still I didn't take his first name! So at the least it should be Mr John and Mrs Jane Smith. 

Neither of my sisters took their husbands name and both have received post in the forename and surname of their husbands'. Culprits include the school their children attend.

A.


----------



## ali (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Sorry meant to post this to Letting off steam. Can this be moved please?

A.


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

There’s nothing worse than a woman who doesn’t know her place.
I hope your husband doesn’t read this or he will ban you from the computer and cut your allowance!


----------



## Caveat (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Now you've done it - a topical one I heard this morning:

How do you turn a dishwasher into a snowplough?

Give her a shovel. 

Seriously though, I can't believe that form of address is still used. It's kind of victorian really. Or exclusive only to those on Reader's Digest mailing list maybe.


----------



## purpeller (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

My great aunt persists in sending birthday cards to my mother address to Mrs MyDad'sfirstname surname.  Drives her mad.  Traditionally, you only use Mrs actualfirstname surname when the husband is dead!  Times change but lots of people don't!


----------



## bren1916 (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Women....desist in whining about your husbands' post and get back to the kitchen!


----------



## Vanilla (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Got a letter yesterday from Halifax about an old credit card account I used to have- they overcharged interest apparently and wanted us to contact them to pay it back to us. The account was in our joint names- in fact I was the one who applied for it originally, and the one who subsequently closed it as I deal with all paperwork and finances in our house. But somehow the letter is made out to my husband in his sole name ( of course once opened it was handed to me immediately for me to deal with) and when I rang up they wouldn't talk to me- despite the fact that it was a joint account- insisted they would only talk to my husband as I was 'the second named account holder'. Give me patience.


----------



## jhegarty (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Purple said:


> There’s nothing worse than a woman who doesn’t know her place.
> I hope your husband doesn’t read this or he will ban you from the computer and cut your allowance!




+1 

If she gets away with her own name then next thing is she will want the vote !


----------



## z104 (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Purple said:


> There’s nothing worse than a woman who doesn’t know her place.
> I hope your husband doesn’t read this or he will ban you from the computer and cut your allowance!


 
Did you not become your Husbands property on marriage. Jeeez.


----------



## Purple (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Niallers said:


> Did you not become your Husbands property on marriage. Jeeez.



No, I'm married to a woman.


----------



## levelpar (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet


----------



## ali (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

I'm reminded of a story my mother told me. A friend who had given birth in the 70's dealt with all hospital appointments and charges herself . On arrival home from the hospital she discovered the obstetrician had sent the bill for his services to her husband. She sent a cheque by return - addressed to the obstetrician's wife.


----------



## Leo (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



ali said:


> Sorry meant to post this to Letting off steam. Can this be moved please?.


 
Ask and, all going well....


----------



## WaterSprite (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

I've actually met a woman who introduced *herself* as "Mrs. John Smith".  Although I know the issue of wives taking their husbands' names has been discussed _ad nauseum_ here before, I feel really sorry for those women who try to hold onto their own names after marriage, in the face of what can sometimes seem to be a deliberate ignoring of their wishes by many friends and family members.  Unless I've been told specifically that a woman has taken her husband's name, I continue using (both her original names.


----------



## NOAH (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

just be glad you get the post

noah


----------



## johnd (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

If a woman gives her name as Mrs. John Smith then that is how I would address her - all the time, in all social situations.  

What I really hate is when you see widows refered to as relics of John Smith! To me a relic is a piece of property belonging to someone.. What kind of family would refer to their mother like that?


----------



## gipimann (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Actually the word is _relict _which is an archaic term for a widow.

It also has the following meanings -

a plant or animal species living on in isolation in a small local area as a survival from an earlier period or as a remnant of an almost extinct group

a physical feature, mineral, structure, etc. remaining after other components have wasted away or been altered


----------



## johnd (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Actually the word is _relict _which is an archaic term for a widow.


Used by archaic people!


----------



## woodbine (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



ali said:


> I'm reminded of a story my mother told me. A friend who had given birth in the 70's dealt with all hospital appointments and charges herself .


 
had to read this twice, i thought it said: 




ali said:


> A friend who had given birth in her 70's dealt with all hospital appointments and charges herself .


 

i now realise that she was not in fact, a guinness book of records candidate.


----------



## mathepac (19 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



ali said:


> It drives me demented to receive post addressed to Mr and Mrs John Smith ...


Could I venture to suggest that you write to the organisations / individuals who continue to address your post in a fashion that drives you demented and inform them how you wish to have written communications destined for you and your husband styled, e.g. "Mr. John Smith and Mrs. / Miss / Ms. Mary Jones" with whatever naming sequence and salutaion combination that floats your boat.

Creating yet another thread on AAM in LOS changes nothing, other than perhaps to attract a few empathetic and conciliatory mutterings from the sisterhood and will not alleviate your  level of "dementedness" when the next lot of non-PC post lands on the door-mat.


----------



## Rois (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Not to mention the cold callers from call centres & sub-continents etc desperate to sell double glazing, conservatories etc, who when I answer the phone then ask immediately to speak to "Mr Rois" (non-existant BTW).


----------



## Bronte (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Vanilla said:


> Got a letter yesterday from Halifax about an old credit card account I used to have- they overcharged interest apparently and wanted us to contact them to pay it back to us. The account was in our joint names- in fact I was the one who applied for it originally, and the one who subsequently closed it as I deal with all paperwork and finances in our house. But somehow the letter is made out to my husband in his sole name ( of course once opened it was handed to me immediately for me to deal with) and when I rang up they wouldn't talk to me- despite the fact that it was a joint account- insisted they would only talk to my husband as I was 'the second named account holder'. Give me patience.


 
This drives me round the bend too.  I think banks, insurance companies etc have a policy of putting the male name first, this despite the fact that I fill out every form and put my name first and deal with all issues.  Revenue have also done it to us as they deal with us through his name (joint assessment) despite the fact that I do the accounts and sign the returns.

At least in Ireland you have Ms instead of Mrs or Miss if you want.  Where I am now I've received correspondance as Mrs Brown Smith with both our surnames but I put that down to them not always knowing forenames from surnames.

Mathpac, do you really think a letter of complaint would work, it would go into the pile called 'to do in 2 years time' when the new girl or boy takes over and consequently gets dumped in the annual clean out.


----------



## WaterSprite (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



johnd said:


> If a woman gives her name as Mrs. John Smith then that is how I would address her - all the time, in all social situations.
> 
> What I really hate is when you see widows refered to as relics of John Smith! To me a relic is a piece of property belonging to someone.. What kind of family would refer to their mother like that?



I would also address someone as they wished.  I just think it's mad.  I would also, at a push, manage to keep my sentiments to myself.


----------



## thedaras (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

My sister in law,introduces me as follows:

This is my sister in law!!
She doesnt even use my name first...........


----------



## Caveat (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Bizarre!!


----------



## mathepac (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Bronte said:


> .... Mathpac, do you really think a letter of complaint would work, it would go into the pile called 'to do in 2 years time' when the new girl or boy takes over and consequently gets dumped in the annual clean out.


I never suggested a letter of complaint. What I suggested was 


> ... write to the organisations / individuals ... and inform them how you wish to have written communications destined for you and your husband styled, ...


 Letters to the Complaints Department IME go in the circular file while letters to the Political Correctness  / Renewable Energy / Hair Shirt / Tree Hugging sections get immediate action. (I believe Mr. Gormless's offficials  issued a directive while we were drowing in rain-water, snow and ice )

I think its safe to assume that financial institutions, utility companies, service providers who have the mythical "Mr & Mrs John Smith" as their customers have a contract somewhere that details who in fact their legal agreement is with; invite them to look it up so they can address written communications properly, otherwise send them back marked "Unknown at this address".


----------



## greenfield (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Once met a man who introduced me to the couple beside him as "my brother in law and his wife".   The woman was actually his sister...


----------



## Dicette (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

The Mrs John Smith thing drives me daft as well (my husband thinks it's hilarious).

However I find the biggest culprits are women my own age (30's)- who use this form when addressing wedding invitations and Christmas cards. I do excuse my 85 year old grandfather-in-law when he does it.

Recently I was filling in a form for the Drugs Payment Scheme. The pharmacist asked if I was the only member of my household - I replied that I was married. She told me to put my husband's name first on the form, as the "head of the household" was to be the first name. She tried to argue with me, when I told her that I was the head of the household and entered my name on the first line. (My little blow for feminism and also on a practical note, I'm the one who requires the expensive drugs).


----------



## truthseeker (20 Jan 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



Dicette said:


> as the "head of the household" was to be the first name.


 
What does this mean?? Head of the household - does it mean the person in charge, the person who _owns _the household including spouse and children? It always annoys me. My household has no head - or a joint head - but not just one head.


----------



## Leper (2 Feb 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

Nice Post Ali and I agree with every word you say.  I cannot speak from a rock of knowledge, but I believe calling a lady by her husband's name is outdated, to say the least.


----------



## Vanilla (2 Feb 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



truthseeker said:


> What does this mean?? Head of the household - does it mean the person in charge, the person who _owns _the household including spouse and children? It always annoys me. My household has no head - or a joint head - but not just one head.


 

LOL. While I echo the sentiment I usually deny vehemently being the 'head of the house hold' in any pertinent situation. I always say my husband is, hoping that he might have to deal with any red tape/cold callers or whatever. I'm pretty sure he puts me down though...


----------



## Purple (2 Feb 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



truthseeker said:


> What does this mean?? Head of the household - does it mean the person in charge, the person who _owns _the household including spouse and children? It always annoys me. My household has no head - or a joint head - but not just one head.



You better hope your husband doesn't read that or he'll cut your allowance!


----------



## D8Lady (2 Feb 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*

My sister got married last year and before it, I mentioned that it was not law to take husbands name, just custom. 
She was highly offended, wanted it to be seen as a symbol of their unity etc and wouldn't speak to me for 6 weeks. 

The only other time I see "head of household" referred to is in filling out the census form.


----------



## Bronte (3 Feb 2010)

*Re: I am a person!*



D8Lady said:


> My sister got married last year and before it, I mentioned that it was not law to take husbands name, just custom.
> She was highly offended, wanted it to be seen as a symbol of their unity etc and wouldn't speak to me for 6 weeks.
> 
> .


  It's early days, give her a year or two.


----------



## csirl (3 Feb 2010)

I have the opposite problem - sometimes I get post addressed to me as "Mr My wifes maiden name" as my wife uses her maiden name for some things. There seems to be a total inability of officialdom to cope with 2 married people using different surnames.


----------



## Firefly (3 Feb 2010)

csirl said:


> I have the opposite problem - sometimes I get post addressed to me as "Mr My wifes maiden name" as my wife uses her maiden name for some things. There seems to be a total inability of officialdom to cope with 2 married people using different surnames.


 
Guess we know who wears the pants in your house then


----------



## annR (3 Feb 2010)

I'd like to add a conciliatory muttering as Mathepac put it . . . . .I decided to change my maiden name after we were married which, sounds silly but was a big deal for me to let go of the name I had happily lived my whole life with, like that person doesn't exist anymore because I am now married.  .  .anyway I decided to change it for ease of communication with the creche etc.  Just as I was sitting at home doing this, the post arrived, I picked it up and it was addressed to Mrs husband's christian name+surname.  So without even informing anyone I had lost my first name as well as my surname!.  I guess it doesn't really matter or have any bearing on anything but I would have been the last person to think that I would even give it a second thought.  Humour aside, your name is a big part of your identity.. . . you don't know till it happens to you how you will react.


----------



## VOR (3 Feb 2010)

What about when the husband jumps the gun and books the honeymoon tickets in his surname only? Once she saw the tickets, it took his wife-to-be about 5 seconds to realise she didn't have a passport in that name and wouldn't have one by the time she left for her honeymoon. 
Happened to my cousin who was not best pleased. Neither was her future husband who then had to fork out to change the name back. Served him right.


----------



## Thirsty (5 Feb 2010)

@thedaras
Well she's right, in terms of introductions - 'May I present (or less formally 'This is..') my sister-in-law, Jane O'Dara'  - is the correct form.

Of course if she says 'This is my sister-in-law' with no name given that's just socially inept; then all you can do is offer your right hand to the other person say "Hello, I'm Jane O'Dara, Joan's sister-in-law'.


----------



## truthseeker (5 Feb 2010)

annR said:


> Humour aside, your name is a big part of your identity.. . . you don't know till it happens to you how you will react.


 
I have a number of female friends who feel the same as you, they feel their identity is intrinsically tied up with their name and dont want to change to their married name.

I never felt that way, it doesnt really matter to me what people call me so long as I know they are referencing me, and I know they mean me whether they use my married name or maiden name.

_*What's in a name? that which we call a rose*_
_*By any other name would smell as sweet;*_


----------



## Vanilla (5 Feb 2010)

truthseeker said:


> i never felt that way, it doesnt really matter to me what people call me so long as i know they are referencing me, and i know they mean me whether they use my married name or maiden name.


 
+1


----------



## Leper (5 Feb 2010)

Did anybody raise the question:- When did this Mr and Mrs John Smith stuff start?


----------



## Purple (6 Feb 2010)

Leper said:


> Did anybody raise the question:- When did this Mr and Mrs John Smith stuff start?



Since it's the natural order of things it was always there...


----------



## MandaC (6 Feb 2010)

I have a very uncommon/odd surname and growing up both my sister and I joked that we could not wait to get married to get rid of it.  Ironically, I havent got married yet......and dont think I will now at this stage.  Even if I did roll down the aisle on my zimmer frame, I wont be changing my name in any way shape or form.  It is me and its got me this far and I am proud of it.

There were no boys in our family, just my sister and I so that is the end of the line of our odd surname, as we have no relatives on my Dad's side.  After all the slagging when we were young, my sister did not change her name when she married either.

Sometimes people trying to sell something ask for Mr. X or the man of the house.  I tell them when they find him, let me know, but make sure he is tall dark and handsome.


----------



## Capt. Beaky (6 Feb 2010)

Purple: +1. As in Adam and Eve


----------



## D8Lady (8 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> Since it's the natural order of things it was always there...



Its an Anglo colonial relic. Irish women usually kept their own name. We're just reverting to the natural order - calling ourselvles by our own names.


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2010)

D8Lady said:


> Irish women usually kept their own name. We're just reverting to the natural order - calling ourselvles by our own names.



When was that then?


----------



## liaconn (8 Feb 2010)

MandaC said:


> I have a very uncommon/odd surname and growing up both my sister and I joked that we could not wait to get married to get rid of it. Ironically, I havent got married yet......and dont think I will now at this stage. Even if I did roll down the aisle on my zimmer frame, I wont be changing my name in any way shape or form. It is me and its got me this far and I am proud of it.


 

Now we're all dying to know what your surname is!

 I wouldn't have thought my surname was that unusual, but I always end up having to spell it a couple of times for people over the phone and even then, they invariably get it wrong.
Getting back to the topic of the thread I notice that, while most of my friends didn't take their married name, the fashion seems to have changed in the last couple of years and taking your husband's surname now seems to be 'in'.


----------



## ney001 (8 Feb 2010)

I would never change my name - my new husband always knew this and it was never a problem.  However, his family are taking some offense to this, particularly the mother.  She sees it as me thinking I'm better then them or some such rubbish! - wants to know what's wrong with their name etc.  I tried explaining that wives don't need to take husbands names anymore blah blah blah but she's in a huff now and won't talk to me................ jeeze if I'd known that that's all I had to do I would have married him years ago!


----------



## becky (8 Feb 2010)

ney001 said:


> I would never change my name - my new husband always knew this and it was never a problem. However, his family are taking some offense to this, particularly the mother. She sees it as me thinking I'm better then them or some such rubbish! - wants to know what's wrong with their name etc. I tried explaining that wives don't need to take husbands names anymore blah blah blah but she's in a huff now and won't talk to me................ jeeze if I'd known that that's all I had to do I would have married him years ago!


 

LOL.

I've noticed a lot of people changing their names here lately. Particularly annoying when they send an email (with the new name) stating I have changed my name to Mary Bloggs but omit to tell you who they use to be. Then you have to tyr and remember what the new name is.

While I have no problem with people changing their name but do wonder why someone would give up an unusual surname to become Mary55Murphy on the internal address book.


----------



## liaconn (8 Feb 2010)

ney001 said:


> I would never change my name - my new husband always knew this and it was never a problem. However, his family are taking some offense to this, particularly the mother. She sees it as me thinking I'm better then them or some such rubbish! - wants to know what's wrong with their name etc. I tried explaining that wives don't need to take husbands names anymore blah blah blah but she's in a huff now and won't talk to me................ jeeze if I'd known that that's all I had to do I would have married him years ago!


 
I remember my mother was a bit miffed when my brother's wife kept her own name and was very suspicious as to what the grandchildren would be called. However, they all have my brother's surname.


----------



## gunnerfitzy (8 Feb 2010)

Given the choice I would like the unlucky lady who marries me to keep her  own name. The whole 'same name' thing probably goes back to idea that  when you get married you become one entity. It's a bit silly in this day and age. But yes I could see a certain type of person thinking its a trendy to be going back to that of thing.... the same type that say 'WE'RE pregnant' that was mentioned on another forum somewhere and I thought was quite funny


----------



## Caveat (8 Feb 2010)

My wife didn't care either way - and as a result, went with my name just to make things easier (in a number of senses)


----------



## annR (8 Feb 2010)

I was told that in Germany, married women have no choice, they have to change their surnames?  Can anyone confirm that?


----------



## Caveat (8 Feb 2010)

Well it wouldn't surprise me considering other German laws - e.g. kids can only be named according to an approved list of German girls/boys names.

Has it's benefits though, no little _Britnitzches_ or_ Jordanheims_ around anyway.


----------



## truthseeker (8 Feb 2010)

Caveat said:


> Well it wouldn't surprise me considering other German laws - e.g. kids can only be named according to an approved list of German girls/boys names.


 
What?


----------



## liaconn (8 Feb 2010)

Yep.

http://www.yeahbaby.com/article.php?page=118


----------



## Latrade (8 Feb 2010)

liaconn said:


> Yep.
> 
> http://www.yeahbaby.com/article.php?page=118


 
Did you all miss the bit in the Lisbon Treaty where this will become European Law in 5 years? 

Anyway, aren't maiden names still inherited from the paternal line in the majority of cases? Then why the debasement of one sexist principle if only to cling to another if you retain the name?


----------



## Vanilla (8 Feb 2010)

Latrade said:


> Anyway, aren't maiden names still inherited from the paternal line in the majority of cases? Then why the debasement of one sexist principle if only to cling to another if you retain the name?


 
Good point.


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2010)

There have been many matriarchal societies through the ages... they've all failed.

'nuff said.


----------



## liaconn (8 Feb 2010)

Latrade said:


> Did you all miss the bit in the Lisbon Treaty where this will become European Law in 5 years?


 
Oh dear. No more Chardonnay O'Briens and Heathcliff Dunnes then?


----------



## Vanilla (8 Feb 2010)

Purple said:


> There have been many matriarchal societies through the ages... they've all failed.
> 
> 'nuff said.


 
And yet, despite all the patriarchal societies that flourish, we have yet to find a utopian, or at least peaceful, society ( Scandanavia aside, obviously).


----------



## Capt. Beaky (8 Feb 2010)

This is Wiki's take on Gaelic Utopia before Strongbow  ............. 
_Cáin Adomnáin_, a Christian Law, promulgated by the Synod of Birr in 697, sought to raise the status of woman of that era, although the actual effect is unknown.[9] Regardless, although Irish society under the Brehon Laws was male-dominated, women had greater freedom, independence and rights to property than in other European societies of the time. Men and women held their property separately. The marriage laws were very complex. For example, there were scores of ways of combining households and properties and then dividing the property and its increase when disputes arose. Later, under the church laws, women were disadvantaged. For example, in this later era, a woman could not pass her property onto her children. Divorce was provided for on a number of grounds (eg. impotence or homosexuality on the husband's part), after which property was divided according to what contribution each spouse had made to the household. A husband was legally permitted to hit his wife to "correct" her, but if the blow left a mark she was entitled to the equivalent of her bride-price in compensation and could, if she wished, divorce him. Property of a household could not be disposed of without the consent of both spouses. However, under church law, women were still largely subject to their fathers or husbands and were not normally permitted to act as witnesses, their testimony being considered "biased and dishonest". [10]

............. and then the church stuck it's head in


----------



## Purple (8 Feb 2010)

Vanilla said:


> And yet, despite all the patriarchal societies that flourish, we have yet to find a utopian, or at least peaceful, society ( Scandanavia aside, obviously).



Yea, stop being serious will ya!


----------



## Vanilla (9 Feb 2010)

Who says I'm being serious?


----------

