homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Licences and C of E weddings outside churches (Page 1)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Licences and C of E weddings outside churches
Boadicea Trott
Shipmate
# 9621

 - Posted      Profile for Boadicea Trott   Email Boadicea Trott   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was watching Downton Abbey season 2 on dvd with my daughters last night, and the scene where William (mortally injured in WW1 and has come home to die) asks his sweetheart Daisy to marry him so she can be provided for after his death, made me pause for thought. The local vicar appears reluctant to perform a bedside wedding for them *only* on his spoken basis that their marriage may only being undertaken for financial gain (eg so she can get a widow's pension from the Army.)

Question 1: Could he refuse to perform a ceremony on that basis alone?

Also, the wedding has been arranged at incredibly short notice - it appears to be in less than 24 hours. Both are normally resident in that parish.

Question 2: It seemed to me that a licence of some sort would be needed for the wedding to satisfy the legal criteria as banns have obviously not been read in church and the wedding will not be taking place in church.

As this is set in 1918, I thought only a Special Licence was available at that time, and that would be obtained from a diocesan bishop, which must not have been an instantaneous process.

Am I correct or is there another explanation?

Google is not being helpful on this matter, and I am asking the collective wisdom of the Ship's encyclopaedic knowledge of Anglican canon law minutiae for clarification [Overused]

--------------------
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett

Posts: 563 | From: Roaming the World in my imagination..... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I am certainly not an authority on this subject, but I can see reasons for the vicar to refuse.

Suppose, down the line, someone were to make public the fact that this wedding took place solely for Daisy to receive survivor benefits, and in fact the marriage was never consummated. I can imagine a charge of fraud leveled against Daisy and the vicar.

Of course, we know that Daisy was a reluctant participant; she married William only because he was dying and wanted to marry her. Financial gain was almost certainly not her goal.

By the way, how large would her widow's pension have been?

Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
By the way, how large would her widow's pension have been?

Thank you, Mr. Internet:

quote:
  • At the end of the First World War the standard pension for war widows was 13s 9d (68¾ new pence) a week. See these Parliamentary questions from 1976. DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The statutory weekly minimum wage for a UK agricultural labourer in 1918 was 30 shillings and sixpence (or £1.52½ in decimal money); so the pension was less than half what one of the poorest workers would earn. Alansplodge (talk) 12:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So by no means a generous amount of money, but not a complete pittance either, even for someone with another source of income through employment.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boadicea Trott
Shipmate
# 9621

 - Posted      Profile for Boadicea Trott   Email Boadicea Trott   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you!
A widow's pension from WW1 would be 15 shillings per week just for her as of May 1918.
If there were children of the union, one shilling and two pence allowed per child.

Not a huge amount.

[ 29. January 2013, 18:02: Message edited by: Boadicea Trott ]

--------------------
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett

Posts: 563 | From: Roaming the World in my imagination..... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
That a wedding is taking place for financial purposes is not a "just cause or impediment" against its happening. It's perfectly legitimate - still happens these days, in fact, because "common law" partners have no automatic right of inheritance, and can't usually inherit pension rights. The only similar case in which the person performing the wedding might have misgivings would be if the marriage prevented someone else from financial benefit - e.g. the new spouse inherits ahead of the children by a previous marriage. Even then, the main thing to check would be that both partners (especially the dying one) had the mental capacity to understand the nature and implications of their vows.

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238

 - Posted      Profile for Crœsos     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boadicea Trott:
Thank you!
A widow's pension from WW1 would be 15 shillings per week just for her as of May 1918.
If there were children of the union, one shilling and two pence allowed per child.

Not a huge amount.

According to the second post on this thread (the one by Nigel Marshall), a widow would only get 15 shillings if her dead husband was a "Non-Commissioned Officer, Class IV". An addendum follows detailing child support increments.

--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto

Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313

 - Posted      Profile for Heavenly Anarchist   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Re: the bedside wedding. I cannot vouch for such weddings at home but can say they happen in hospital, as I worked on a ward where one took place in the 90s. The patient concerned was terminally ill with days left to live and special permission was given by the doctor signing a form saying that she would not recover from her illness. I believe the chaplain married the couple. I cannot remember any reference being made to getting a license from the Bishop, I'm assuming this special license just required medical confirmation, but to be honest, it was a long time ago and I wasn't Christian so it may have just slipped by me.
It was quite beautiful, but very emotional.

--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop

Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Boadicea Trott
Shipmate
# 9621

 - Posted      Profile for Boadicea Trott   Email Boadicea Trott   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thank you to *all* for the valuable information and for clarification regarding the widow's pension.

I am still somewhat perplexed about how they managed to get a Special Licence so very quickly, given it was not cheap and only available from the diocesan bishop. [Paranoid]

--------------------
X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett

Posts: 563 | From: Roaming the World in my imagination..... | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I expect Lord Downton pulled a few strings. After all, William had just saved Matthew's life... persuading the Bishop to give him a Special Licence was the least they could do.

And William's dad is a fairly prosperous farmer; if Lord Downing didn't want to pay for the licence himself I'm sure he could have afforded to gratify his son's dying wish.

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313

 - Posted      Profile for HCH   Email HCH   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As long as we are at it: how much is Daisy being paid working in the Downton kitchen?
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
As long as we are at it: how much is Daisy being paid working in the Downton kitchen?

Besides room and board, about 15 pounds a year, equal to about $1,600 today.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
From recollection (i.e. without checking) until quite recently to get married somewhere other than in the appropriate church, such as in a hospital bed, required an Archbishop's Licence and not an ordinary Special diocesan one. I've a sort of memory that C S Lewis married Joy Davidman with one. I've no idea whether even that was possible in the Great War, but there may have been a special scheme for soldiers.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
From recollection (i.e. without checking) until quite recently to get married somewhere other than in the appropriate church, such as in a hospital bed, required an Archbishop's Licence and not an ordinary Special diocesan one. I've a sort of memory that C S Lewis married Joy Davidman with one. I've no idea whether even that was possible in the Great War, but there may have been a special scheme for soldiers.

The Special License existed at the time, it had for many a year (there is reference to it in the copy of The Clergyman's Vade Mecum I have from 1710 - it comes up because there was an argument that no marriage could occur except by the Publishing of Banns as it was laid down in statute, though the counter argument ran that the Bishop's License is also set down in Statute, but anyway that is another discussion) and I can quite well imagine that it could be granted much more expediently back then than today (although the speedy License can be gained in circumstances to day).

I can't find anything to suggest that marriage law was adapted during the First World War, but I can only say that it would seem humane for the Bishops to have shown some sympathy and been flexible in granting licenses...

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think this kind of televisual event is restricted to WW-I era shows. Coronation Street had a death bed wedding in hospital a couple of years ago. Followed by the groom recovering, for which there didn't seem to be a penalty...

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
I don't think this kind of televisual event is restricted to WW-I era shows. Coronation Street had a death bed wedding in hospital a couple of years ago. Followed by the groom recovering, for which there didn't seem to be a penalty...

TVlandia has been giving people the wrong idea about weddings for years. You should see the wedding planning guides these days- they have to devote whole sections to explaining what this religion thing is all about and how churches work.

I hear from some priests that disabusing Ms. Bride of her ridiculous expectations is a real pain in the ass. "No, you can't write your own vows. No, you can't release doves in the church. No, yo can't interrupt the service with a full Bollywood number...."

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear from some priests that disabusing Ms. Bride of her ridiculous expectations is a real pain in the ass.

Miss not Ms. - oh, unless you are talking of a widow getting remarried...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I hear from some priests that disabusing Ms. Bride of her ridiculous expectations is a real pain in the ass.

Miss not Ms. - oh, unless you are talking of a widow getting remarried...
Where I come from, Ms. means an unmarried woman, Mrs. means a married one.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Where I come from Miss means an unmarried woman, Mrs means a married woman and Ms means a woman who does not wish her title (or treatment) to be dependant on her matrimonial status.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Where I come from, Ms. means an unmarried woman, Mrs. means a married one.

Meh! Learn something new everyday!

The rule I learnt was:

Miss. = unmarried/young woman (anyone under an unspecified but somehow universally agreed age)
Mrs. = a married woman
Ms. = a widow/divorcee or a single lady of an older age. (Very much how French ladies go from being mademoiselle (Miss.) to madame (Mrs.) at a certain age - although of course the former has been made illegal in official documents in France and as far as I remember there is no equivelant to Ms. in French.)

[ 30. January 2013, 12:16: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Where I come from Miss means an unmarried woman, Mrs means a married woman and Ms means a woman who does not wish her title (or treatment) to be dependant on her matrimonial status.

Exactly that. As used in Britain anyway. (Sergius-Melli might be British but he is taking the piss here. His tongue seems to be in his cheek)

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
Where I come from Miss means an unmarried woman, Mrs means a married woman and Ms means a woman who does not wish her title (or treatment) to be dependant on her matrimonial status.

Exactly that. As used in Britain anyway. (Sergius-Melli might be British but he is taking the piss here. His tongue seems to be in his cheek)
No piss take, that is what I was taught.

[ 30. January 2013, 13:52: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Prolonging the tangent, but what ken said. Ms is a fairly recent innovation (and nobody seems to have learnt how to pronounce it) but it is obviously useful. There is no reason why a woman's marital status should be declared in her title unless she so wishes; we men don't have that problem. I always understood though that, traditionally, widows, and often divorcees, remained Mrs unless they chose to revert to their maiden name.

At least today you don't get so many married women being addressed by their husband's christian name as well as surname... Mrs Fred Bloggs for example.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I can't off hand think of any widow I know who uses Ms. They are usually very adamant that they aren't Ms because, whatever the theory, it implies a person who is divorced.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Similarly, I should have added that I know several older - even elderly - unmarried women who are adamant that they should be addressed as 'Miss'.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I missed the edit button but I meant to say I also use the title Master when sending post to my younger brother and my nephews (who are not of adult age.)

It does seem from a quick look around that there are no sure and fast rules about this except for Mrs. being solely for a married woman (though not excluding divorcees and widows).

and to x-post a little,

I still address envelopes to Mr & Mrs J. Bloggs when sending to a couple.

I must really be old-fashioned in a very young body... but then again I come from one of those kind of families...

[ 30. January 2013, 13:58: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I missed the edit button but I meant to say I also use the title Master when sending post to my younger brother and my nephews (who are not of adult age.)

It does seem from a quick look around that there are no sure and fast rules about this except for Mrs. being solely for a married woman (though not excluding divorcees and widows).

and to x-post a little,

I still address envelopes to Mr & Mrs J. Bloggs when sending to a couple.

I must really be old-fashioned in a very young body... but then again I come from one of those kind of families...

I am in my 20s and single and go by Ms - the whole point is that it does not disclose my marital status. If I was married and got something addressed to Mr & Mrs HisFirstName HisLastName I'd send it right back! Even if I did take on a husband's last name, I'm not going to take his first name! What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I missed the edit button but I meant to say I also use the title Master when sending post to my younger brother and my nephews (who are not of adult age.)

It does seem from a quick look around that there are no sure and fast rules about this except for Mrs. being solely for a married woman (though not excluding divorcees and widows).

and to x-post a little,


I still address envelopes to Mr & Mrs J. Bloggs when sending to a couple.

I must really be old-fashioned in a very young body... but then again I come from one of those kind of families...

I am in my 20s and single and go by Ms - the whole point is that it does not disclose my marital status. If I was married and got something addressed to Mr & Mrs HisFirstName HisLastName I'd send it right back! Even if I did take on a husband's last name, I'm not going to take his first name! What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?
Well i'm aproaching 60 and long term married and I have always used Ms both before and after I got married.

As said by many, Ms was the creation for those of us, who didn't see why our marital status should be obvious to all.

If we get anything addressed to Mr and Mrs Husbands first name, I refuse to open it as it is not addressed to me.

The term master for a young boy I haven't heard or seen used for many years.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
http://nhs-chaplaincy-spiritualcare.org.uk/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Emergency%20marriage%20in%20hospital%20-%20for%20issue%20de c%202011.pdf

the reference to the NHS chaplaincy on emergency weddings.

These rules came in in 83, and apply to hospitals, so i'm afraid it won't answer the OP question

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A weird feature about Special Licences, which would appear to apply to the Downton one, bearing in mind that Downton seems to be set in Yorkshire, is that even a wedding in York Minster seems to require a licence from the Archbishop of Canterbury and not the Archbishop of York!

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636

 - Posted      Profile for BroJames   Email BroJames   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think the reason that the power lies with Canterbury is that it was originally a papal discretion which was transferred to the Archbishop of Canterbury (as the 'senior' of the two archbishops) by Act of Parliament in 1533.

There were separate powers for the Archbishops to grant licences for people coming from two different dioceses in their respective provinces, and for the Archbishop of Canterbury for people coming from both provinces, but these were abolished by the Marriage Act of 1753.

Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And to beat the drum again (but this time in regards to Special Licences)...

All this is true except in the Diocese of Sodor and Mann where special licenses as given by the ++Canterbury are in the power of the Diocesean Bishop as ++Canterbury has no jursidiction in these matters.

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

To continue the tangent, when I was faced with this quandary in the case of an old friend, I invented the style (which I will anonymise) for John Smith married to Ann Brown who retains her maiden name: 'John and Ann Smith/Brown'
The couple concerned rather liked the innovation, since, as 'John' observed, Smith did stroke Brown quite frequently. (N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

As regards titles for women, it is a great pity that the old social convention in letters of a woman putting the title by which she preferred to be addressed (which would have been Miss or Mrs) in parentheses after her name, thus allowing respondents to use the preferred title. Nowadays, in the absence of any clues and an increase in the number of options (Miss/Mrs/Ms) one is faced with a)guessing and causing offence, which is highly likely given that some women hate being addressed by 'Ms' and others hate being addressed by anything else, or b) using a first name and falling into the trap of inappropriate, unwelcome informality. (In case US shipmates are surprised at the problem expressed in the second option, I hate being addressed by my first name by total strangers, and I like to extend the courtesy of formality to to others.)
I suppose that the lack of a cohesive common social attitude to the subject of titles for addressing women explains why the muddle continues. As can be perfectly illustrated by reference to previous posts in this thread...
Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992

 - Posted      Profile for Adeodatus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A.Pilgrim, I'm another who hate the assumption that when you meet a stranger, you should immediately be on first name terms with them. I give people permission to use my first name, unless we're already acquainted. This happens a lot in hospital where, despite years of nagging, nursing and medical staff still often assume that people want to be called by their first name. It's really very rude.

On the main topic, I think a lot of hospital chaplains these days prefer to let the civil Registrar handle the "legal" marriage. So many "end-of-life" marriages are complex (possibly several previous divorces, questions relating to immigration and so on) that the Registrar is a much safer pair of hands. A religious blessing can always be offered afterwards for those who want it. (In fact, in some countries in continental Europe, that's how all weddings happen anyway.)

--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."

Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Correction to my previous post. In the sentence starting: 'As regards titles...' insert at the end of the sentence: ', is no longer current practice'

So many subordinate clauses that I forgot to end the main sentence itself. Doh! I blame the winter glooms... [Ultra confused]

I agree totally with Adeodatus that hospitals are an environment in which over-informality to patients is rife. It's so disrespectful.

[ 01. February 2013, 13:01: Message edited by: A.Pilgrim ]

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Heavenly Anarchist
Shipmate
# 13313

 - Posted      Profile for Heavenly Anarchist   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Further on the tangent, I spent 12 years as an outpatient Sister and always called out patients' full names as this was the best way of ensuring the correct patient answered their name. But I then called them Sir or Madam, or by their title and surname, when face to face until told otherwise. If in doubt of a female title I used Ms. Addressing strangers by their first name is very presumptious, IMO.

--------------------
'I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by.' Douglas Adams
Dog Activity Monitor
My shop

Posts: 2831 | From: Trumpington | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ondergard
Shipmate
# 9324

 - Posted      Profile for Ondergard   Email Ondergard   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
And extending the tangent, don't you hate this modern trend in business of people calling themselves, like some five year old in reception class, only by their first name, particularly on the phone?

"Lloyds TSB, Paul speaking."

"Are you the only Paul in the Universe?"

"Er... no."

"Then saying 'Paul' doesn't advance my knowledge, does it?"

I've even had official letters and e-mails from the Methodist Connexional Team, signed "Doug", as if Doug and I were old chums from way back.

I bloody hate it, but when I complained, I was told "But you should address colleagues by their given name."

No you shouldn't - because first, just because we happen to work for the same organisation, that doesn't make us colleagues, and second, as I have no idea who you are, you certainly aren't a friend.

While we're at it, can't someone teach these people the correct use of what I think is called a reflexive pronoun? In other words, they say, "I have prepared a quote for yourself," instead of "you", or "Could you send that to myself and I'll process it."

They usually put some weird emphasis on "for" and "to" in those sentences as well. It's you, and me, you dopes, not "yourself" and "myself"....

Grumble grumble meh...

[ 01. February 2013, 13:33: Message edited by: Ondergard ]

Posts: 276 | From: Essex | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208

 - Posted      Profile for Zach82     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
If we want to really be traditional, we should only have first names, and maybe add "From..." or "Son/Daughter of..." to the end if we have to be more specific.

Who knows, maybe the first name thing is the result of not really needing surnames anymore. In the United States, wide social circles have basically collapsed, and one is left with only the small circle of friends one really likes to be around. One doesn't have to distinguish between the Fred at church, the Fred in the bowling league, and the Fred that lives two doors down, because the vast majority of people don't go to church or bowling leagues anymore, and our neighbors might as well live in Timbuktu for all we interact with them.

--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice

Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Higgs Bosun
Shipmate
# 16582

 - Posted      Profile for Higgs Bosun   Email Higgs Bosun   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
(N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

The correct terms are 'solidus' or 'shilling mark' (as in 5/6 being read as "five shillings and six pence"). Unfortunately, neither of these terms are also verbs.
Posts: 313 | From: Near the Tidal Thames | Registered: Aug 2011  |  IP: Logged
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076

 - Posted      Profile for Gwai   Email Gwai   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Traditionally I think one can address one's coworkers. more informally than salespeople because one's coworkers are people one has been introduced to.

I think a thread on how we address each other and how those changes relate to changing society might be rather interesting, but it does seem like a bit of a different thread.

--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.


Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ondergard:
And extending the tangent, don't you hate this modern trend in business of people calling themselves, like some five year old in reception class, only by their first name, particularly on the phone?

"Lloyds TSB, Paul speaking."

"Are you the only Paul in the Universe?"

"Er... no."

"Then saying 'Paul' doesn't advance my knowledge, does it?"

I'm envious of your having the confidence to try that one
quote:

While we're at it, can't someone teach these people the correct use of what I think is called a reflexive pronoun? In other words, they say, "I have prepared a quote for yourself," instead of "you", or "Could you send that to myself and I'll process it."

I slightly wonder whether that may come from Gaelic, and whether the reflexive may be used in that language for emphasis or respect. Fifty years or so ago, I think one would have heard that usage as English-Irish or whatever is the correct term for the Irish equivalent of Wenglish. It may have spread from there.

Alternatively, I think English has always used, 'me, myself' to say 'me personally'.

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai
Traditionally I think one can address one's coworkers. more informally than salespeople because one's coworkers are people one has been introduced to.

I've heard all the following, but I don't think salespeople all that care for 'my good man', 'petrol boy' or if behind a bar 'tapster!'.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
If I was married and got something addressed to Mr & Mrs HisFirstName HisLastName I'd send it right back!

Heh - that's exactly how my in-laws address their Christmas cards to us!

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Friend of my wife's (who is BTW definitely not Mrs Albertus'srealname) got a PhD and her mother proudly used to address letters to her as Dr XY. Then she married Mr Z and her mother started writing to Mrs XZ- this having, it seems, a higher status in the mother's eyes.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
... What do you do for married couples who don't share a last name?

To continue the tangent, when I was faced with this quandary in the case of an old friend, I invented the style (which I will anonymise) for John Smith married to Ann Brown who retains her maiden name: 'John and Ann Smith/Brown'
The couple concerned rather liked the innovation, since, as 'John' observed, Smith did stroke Brown quite frequently. (N.B. To prevent misunderstanding, the usage in my UK-based social context is that a '/' is a stroke sign; therefore my innovation may not be transferable to other social contexts where the '/' is called a slash - which does have unfortunate and inappropriate connotations for this usage.)

What is wrong with simply writing MS Y and Mr Z? Which is the preferred style of address in our house.
I get really annoyed when, despite telling people when we got married and despite having address labels printed and used on all correspondence, for nearly 30 years. Close family still insist on using Mr and Mrs Z or Mr and Mrs Firstname Z. Which drives me insane and I won't open.

Yet when they send things to me alone, such as birthday cards they will address it to Ms Y!!! Why is it when we are together I am automatically subsumed into his identity.
We went to a very formal family wedding and there was a member of staff looking at the seating plan and escorting guests to their seats. We got separated as a family and as I approached the staff member, I was asked my name and said without thinking 'MS Y' because it is and always has been my name. There was total confusion and I was told I had no seat on the plan and there was a bit of a kerfuffle, a big queue of guests behind me and I was asked to wait on one side until it was sorted out. I then twigged, my family had insisted in using Mrs Z on the plan and the staff member in looking for Ms Y was looking for, in my families eyes it seems, a non existent person.

Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
St Everild
Shipmate
# 3626

 - Posted      Profile for St Everild   Email St Everild   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
My mother used to send correspondence to me addressed to Mrs (husbands initial) Surname. It drove me bats, but she insisted because, she said, it was "correct". [Mad] After I was ordained she couldn't very well do that, but she used to use Title First and Second Initial Surname...even though that was not correct!

Mind you, I come from a family who thought it proper to ask a male cousin to give the tribute at my fathers funeral, on the grounds that he was "the oldest male relative". The fact that he hadn't seen my father for years was irrelevant. In the even the read the lesson. It made the day infinitely more upsetting.

Posts: 1782 | From: Bethnei | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814

 - Posted      Profile for Galloping Granny   Email Galloping Granny   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still on the tangent...

Certain UK friends send us a Christmas card addressed to Mr & Mrs Hisinitials X**. Ours to them is addressed to John and Mary Y**. They're good friends and don't complain! A dear friend and ex-colleague there posts to me as Mrs Hisinitial X** – because of his status I don't mind addressing his letter to Mr R Z**. Everyone else gets the John & Mary treatment. And in spite of my age I don't mind being called by my full christian name at the hospital/surgery/dentist's – but I quickly offer them the short form I've been known by for the last sixty-odd years.

GG

--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113

Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008  |  IP: Logged
A.Pilgrim
Shipmate
# 15044

 - Posted      Profile for A.Pilgrim   Email A.Pilgrim   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

...
Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?

Possibly because they find it disrespectful to them that you refuse to conform to their social conventions.

And so we are faced with the quandary that everyone in the world is faced with from the age of about two years (at which age the existence of other people as separate entities impinges on our consciousness): Do I get others to conform to my demands, even if they find my demands objectionable, or do I conform to the demands of others, even though I find those demands objectionable myself? Such is life...

Angus

Posts: 434 | From: UK | Registered: Aug 2009  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A.Pilgrim:
quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

...
Why do it? I give them the respect of calling them by their chosen names, why disrespect me by calling me by a name they chose instead?

Possibly because they find it disrespectful to them that you refuse to conform to their social conventions.

And so we are faced with the quandary that everyone in the world is faced with from the age of about two years (at which age the existence of other people as separate entities impinges on our consciousness): Do I get others to conform to my demands, even if they find my demands objectionable, or do I conform to the demands of others, even though I find those demands objectionable myself? Such is life...

Angus

Some people have said they 'don't know' what to call me. Well as my name has been printed on every correspondence and Christmas card from me for best part of 30 years, I can only assume that they can't read!!

And as an estimated 1 in 10 women in England (I don't know about the rest of the UK and abroad) don't change their name on marriage, it is something that is well established by now.

So why this should be seen as challenging social convention, I have no idea, after all there has been a whole change in social conventions in the last 30+ years. Such as it is very common now not to be married at all and nothing is thought about it.

Something else I sometimes get, is people will use my correct name and not my husband’s and then put Mrs in front of it. For instance it happened to me in one place I worked, I realised that I was being called Mrs Y by other staff to the public, and was told it was so that people knew I am married. DUH that is the whole point of Ms – I didn’t want people to automatically know I was married, it was not relevant to my work…...

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's very irritating when people spell ones name wrong - particularly if you think that if they were as concerned about you as you think they ought to be, they should know the right spelling by now. But being hissy about it is something most adults grow out of. We bite our tongues and learn to live with it.

Unless a person's sense of identity really is so fragile that it is genuinely threatened by being addressed the wrong way, it's only our amour propre that we're being jealous for. It doesn't seem particularly laudable if we dress up our irritation as an issue of principle, and make a scene about it, as by refusing to open letters with what we conceive as the wrong version of our name on the envelope.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't seem particularly laudable if we dress up our irritation as an issue of principle, and make a scene about it, as by refusing to open letters with what we conceive as the wrong version of our name on the envelope.

But of course now we all know how to send cheques to them and know that they will never be cashed! [Snigger]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Zacchaeus
Shipmate
# 14454

 - Posted      Profile for Zacchaeus   Email Zacchaeus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
It doesn't seem particularly laudable if we dress up our irritation as an issue of principle, and make a scene about it, as by refusing to open letters with what we conceive as the wrong version of our name on the envelope.

But of course now we all know how to send cheques to them and know that they will never be cashed! [Snigger]
Well the problem is that it's not the wrong version of my name - it is the name of a person who doesn't actually exist. When it comes to mail at home the name on the envelopes is my husbands, he will open it.

However It's not just irritation at being addressed wrongly, but sergius-Melli hit a real problem.
When people refuse to use my real name it causes practical problems, yes I have had cheques that I can't cash because they are in the name of a non-existent person, who of course does not have a bank account! The bank once refused to accept a check in the name Mr and Mrs Smith as our account is in the name of Mr Smith and Ms Jones
I have already told the story of the family wedding and the kerfuffle because I had not been given my correct name. Once I on holiday in a hotel, I didn’t receive messages because they were addressed to Mrs Smith when my name is Ms Jones.

As I said its not just about irritation, but also about real issues that are caused when people call me by a name that isn’t mine.

Posts: 1905 | From: the back of beyond | Registered: Jan 2009  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools