Put both last names out of respect for both husbands.
2007-06-06 04:43:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'd never considered such a question, but it's possible for me to be in that situation one day. I don't necessarily plan to ever remarry, but if I did I would still want to be buried beside my first husband. This has to be a common situation, but I don't know the proper etiquette. And regardless of the rules of etiquette, I think the issue should be resolved by the individual's choice. It's unfair that men don't have the same issues to deal with--they keep the same name. Women have the same right to keep their identity and that includes their identity being reflected on their tombstone. It's not a matter of being disrespectful toward your first husband--you lived up to the 'death do us part' part of the marriage vows so there is no apology to make. I see no problem with listing all names on your tombstone if that's what you choose to do. Remind those chn. that the disrespect is being shown to you--not the other way around. It's not their place to make the decision. Now that I've considered the matter, if I have to make this choice I'll get my entire name engraved on the tombstone. Good Luck
2007-06-06 04:49:33
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Most shared tombstones of married couples I have seen had the family name at the top and then each person's first and middle name below with their birthdate.
Ex: Smith
John Doe Jane Doe
1/1/50 1/1/50
I don't quite understand why a person would still want to be buried by a person they aren't married to anymore, but that is just me.
2007-06-06 05:19:49
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
A. In my opinion I'd have to say the original name she shared with husband number one. Only based on the fact that, in the end that's who she is being buried along side. B. Perhaps even both names combined Mary Elizabeth (First husband's last name)Brown-(Second husband's last name)Clark. It could work if you worked it.
2007-06-06 04:48:09
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Easily enough to get a different plot so that the "disrespect" issue doesn't come up. But honestly, she could list all of her names -- Nora (Walker) Jones nee Adler. Walker is the first husband, Jones is her current last name, and Adler is her maiden name.
As for the disrespect to the first husband... well, it's disrespectful to ask the woman to drop her married name and pretend like she never remarried, too. Pot calling kettle, black is the in-color?
2007-06-06 04:44:49
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jarien 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
My mother-in-law used her second husband's name -- and was buried beside her first husband. It's just how it is. Children should learn to accept the realities of the multiple-married families these days. If they really feel threatened by it, put the 2nd last name in parentheses.
2007-06-06 04:44:35
·
answer #6
·
answered by Yahzmin ♥♥ 4ever 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
How many days from now (2/27/13) until 6/5/13?
2016-10-28 06:54:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Beverly 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jones
Hubert Mary
1910-1978 1910-1999
Dang....the spacing won't work correctly after I post it ...but the surname at the top middle and then just the first names and dates under the first names is all that's necessary.
2007-06-06 04:44:22
·
answer #8
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If a woman married in the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage loses her husband she must have the right to re-marry for time to a man who is also living this covenant. If she loses her husband to adultery, D&C 132:44 specifically commands she be given to another man in the covenant-- even if it means plural marriage. If she marries a man outside the covenant she cannot live the covenant, because the covenant requires her to live under the government of her husband as long as he is living under the government of the Lord. Those who say they are going to live by the Law of the Gospel as contained in the Doctrine and Covenants, and then say they will never live plural marriage unless the US government lets them-- they are contradicting themselves. For one thing, in the case of a widow the US government today would be happy for her to marry in plural marriage so she would be less of a welfare problem to them. They do not go after anyone in plural marriage today unless they are forcing women into marriages against their will, especially underage women. The LDS church is not living this covenant today. Read the Second Book of Commandments.
2016-03-13 06:28:15
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Put both names your present husbands name and the one that past because you was remarried and it would be disrespectful to your present husband and his family if you left it off.
2007-06-06 04:43:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by QT Like Mee 3
·
1⤊
0⤋