The invitation to the ceremony is engraved on the front sheet of white note-paper. The smartest, at present, is that with a raised margin—or plate mark. At the top of the sheet the crest (if the family of the bride has the right to use one) is embossed without color. Otherwise the invitation bears no device. The engraving may be in script, block, shaded block, or old English. The invitation to the ceremony should always request “the honour” of your “presence,” and never the “pleasure” of your “company.” (Honour is spelled in the old-fashioned way, with a “u” instead of “honor.”)
Enclosed in Two Envelopes
Two envelopes are never used except for wedding invitations or announcements; but wedding invitations and all accompanying cards are always enclosed first in an inner envelope that has no mucilage on the flap, and is superscribed “Mr. and Mrs. Jameson Greatlake,” without address. This is enclosed in an outer envelope which is sealed and addressed…
A far cry indeed from today’s e-vites to civil marriage ceremonies between two bearded homosexuals and their beagles on a beach in Massachusetts. Oh how I wish we could return to the days of Mrs. Post’s iron doctrine of traditional marriage invitations.
Notice Mrs. Post’s use of “is” above. Our dear lady isn’t some vacillating, weak-kneed lukewarm guardian of the traditional order. “The invitation is engraved.” Because if it wasn’t engraved, how else could you tell you are being invited to a wedding? Sure the “honour” of your “presence” may be requested in correct “old-fashioned” spelling, but isn’t all of that useless without engraving, preferably with a raised margin?
In the interest of full disclosure I confess here that I have not been as stalwart a defender of traditional marriage invitations as I should like to have been. Quite frankly I have neglected my duties to traditional marriage invitations. I allowed my fiancée to choose blue paper instead of forcing white upon her. And her family, unlike the chivalric van Landinghams, does not even have the right to use a crest, let alone a device. A mismatch if there ever was one.
The battle to protect traditional marriage was certainly lost the first time a frivilous young woman’s parents asked for the “pleasure” of a couple’s “company” at her wedding and dared “monogram” the invitation with “couple’s initials,” obliterating any true meaning the word “monogram” once held. Yes, we all must work harder to enforce traditional marriage invitations. If not, the slippery slope of declining invitation standards will soon lead to people spelling “honor” without a “u” on the embossed invitations to the triunion ceremony of three polyamorists.
-Michael E. van Landingham